INTERNATIONAL Journal of Wilderness

DECEMBER 2004 VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3

FEATURES SCIENCE AND RESEARCH EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES 34 Does Wilderness Impoverish Rural Regions? 3 The International Journal of Wilderness BY F. PATRICK HOLMES and WALTER E. HECOX Ten Years Behind and Ten Years Ahead! BY JOHN C. HENDEE PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS 40 Travel Simulation Modeling 4 Human Relationships with Wilderness An Emerging Tool for The Fundamental Definition of Wilderness Character Visitor Management in Wilderness BY ALAN E. WATSON BY DAVID N. COLE

STEWARDSHIP INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES 8 Developing Indicators to Monitor the “Outstanding 41 Wilderness in the Ruaha National Park, Tanzania Opportunities” Quality of Wilderness Character BY MGG MTAHIKO BY PETER LANDRES WILDERNESS DIGEST 12 Monitoring Outstanding Opportunities for Solitude 45 Announcements and Wilderness Calendar BY CHAD P. DAWSON 47 Letter to the Editor 15 Wilderness Character and the Notion of an Telling the Truth about Wilderness “Unconfined” Experience A Call for Honesty BY STEPHEN F. McCOOL Book Reviews 18 Why Primitive Experiences in Wilderness? 48 Reconstructing Conservation: BY BILL BORRIE Finding Common Ground Edited by Ben Minteer and Robert Manning 21 Managing for Primitive Recreation in Wilderness REVIEWED BY JOHN SHULTIS BY JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK 48 Discovering Eden By Alex Hall 25 Wilderness Experiences REVIEWED BY PATRICK MAHER What Should We Be Managing For? BY DAVID N. COLE

28 Monitoring Wilderness Conditions in the Green Mountain National Forest BY KEN NORDEN FRONT COVER Elephants at dusk in the Okavango Delta, come down to drink out of one of the many water 30 Renewing Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River channels. Photo by Boyd Norton. Stewardship in the U.S. Forest Service INSET Masai morani, Tanzania. Photo by Boyd Norton. BY MARY WAGNER International Journal of Wilderness The International Journal of Wilderness links wilderness professionals, scientists, educators, environmentalists, and interested citizens worldwide with a forum for reporting and discussing wilderness ideas and events; inspirational ideas; planning, management, and allocation strategies; education; and research and policy aspects of wilderness stewardship.

EDITORIAL BOARD Perry Brown, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA Vance G. Martin, WILD Foundation, Ojai, Calif., USA Alan Watson, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont., USA John Shultis, University of Northern British Columbia, Prince George, B.C., Canada Steve Hollenhorst, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho, USA Wayne A. Freimund, University of Montana, Missoula, Mont., USA Rebecca Oreskes, White Mountain National Forest, Gorham, N.H., USA

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF John C. Hendee, Professor Emeritus, University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center, Moscow, Idaho, USA

MANAGING EDITOR Chad P. Dawson, SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry, Syracuse, N.Y., USA

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—INTERNATIONAL Gordon Cessford, Department of Conservation, Wellington, New Zealand; Karen Fox, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada; Andrew Muir, Wilderness Foundation Eastern Cape, South Africa; Ian Player, South Africa National Parks Board and The Wilderness Foundation, Howick, Natal, Republic of South Africa; Vicki A. M. Sahanatien, Fundy National Park, Alma, Canada; Won Sop Shin, Chungbuk National University, Chungbuk, Korea; Anna-Liisa Sippola, University of Lapland, Rovaniemi, Finland; Franco Zunino, Associazione Italiana per la Wilderness, Murialdo, Italy.

ASSOCIATE EDITORS—UNITED STATES Greg Aplet, The Wilderness Society, Denver, Colo.; David Cole, Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute, Missoula, Mont.; John Daigle, University of Maine, Orono, Maine; Don Fisher, USFS, Washington D.C.; Joseph Flood, East Carolina University, Greenville, N.C.; Lewis Glenn, Outward Bound USA, Garrison, N.Y.; Glenn Haas, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.; Troy Hall, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; William Hammit, Clemson University, Clemson, S.C.; Greg Hansen, U.S. Forest Service, Mesa, Ariz.; Dave Harmon, Bureau of Land Management, Portland, Oreg.; Bill Hendricks, California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo, Calif.; Ed Krumpe, University of Idaho, Moscow, Idaho; Jim Mahoney, Bureau of Land Management, Sierra Vista, Ariz.; Bob Manning, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vt.; Jeffrey Marion, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Leo McAvoy, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minn.; Michael McCloskey, Sierra Club; Christopher Monz, St. Lawrence University, Canton, N.Y.; Connie Myers, Arthur Carhart Wilderness Training Center, Missoula, Mont.; Roderick Nash, University of California, Santa Barbara, Calif.; David Ostergren, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Ariz.; Marilyn Riley, Wilderness Transitions Inc., Sausalito, Calif.; Joe Roggenbuck, Virginia Polytechnic Institute, Blacksburg, Va.; Holmes Rolston III, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colo.; Susan Sater, U.S. Forest Service, Portland, Oreg.; Tod Schimelpfenig, National Outdoor Leadership School, Lander, Wyo.; Rudy Schuster, SUNY-ESF, Syracuse, N.Y.; Elizabeth Thorndike, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.; Jay Watson, The Wilderness Society, San Francisco, Calif.; Dave White, Arizona State University, Tempe, Ariz.

International Journal of Wilderness (IJW) publishes three issues per year Submissions: Contributions pertinent to wilderness worldwide are (April, August, and December). IJW is a not-for-profit publication. solicited, including articles on wilderness planning, management, and allocation strategies; wilderness education, including descriptions Manuscripts to: Chad P. Dawson, SUNY-ESF, 320 Bray Hall, One of key programs using wilderness for personal growth, therapy, and Forestry Drive, Syracuse, N.Y. 13210-2787, USA. Telephone: (315) environmental education; wilderness-related science and research from 470-6567. Fax: (315) 470-6535. E-mail: [email protected]. all disciplines addressing physical, biological, and social aspects of wilderness; and international perspectives describing wilderness Business Management and Subscriptions: WILD Foundation, P.O. Box 1380, worldwide. Articles, commentaries, letters to the editor, photos, book Ojai, CA 93024, USA. Telephone: (805) 640-0390. Fax: (805) 640-0230. reviews, announcements, and information for the wilderness digest are E-mail: [email protected]. encouraged. A complete list of manuscript submission guidelines is available from the managing editor. Subscription rates (per volume calendar year): Subscription costs are in U.S. dollars only—$35 for individuals and $55 for organizations/ Artwork: Submission of artwork and photographs with captions are libraries. Subscriptions from Canada and Mexico, add $10; outside North encouraged. Photo credits will appear in a byline; artwork may be signed America, add $20. Back issues are available for $15. by the author. All materials printed in the International Journal of Wilderness, copyright World Wide Website: www.ijw.org. © 2004 by the International Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation. Individuals, and nonprofit libraries acting for them, are permitted to make Printed on recycled paper. fair use of material from the journal. ISSN # 1086-5519.

SPONSORING ORGANIZATIONS • Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute • Conservation International • National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) • Outward Bound™ • SUNY College of Environmental Science and Forestry • The WILD® Foundation • The Wilderness Society • University of Idaho Wilderness Research Center • University of Montana, School of Forestry and Wilderness Institute • USDA Forest Service • USDI Bureau of Land Management • USDI Fish and Wildlife Service • USDI National Park Service • Wilderness Foundation (South Africa) • Wilderness Leadership School (South Africa)

2 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 FEATURES

EDITORIAL PERSPECTIVES

The International Journal of Wilderness

Ten Years Behind and Ten Years Ahead!

BY JOHN C. HENDEE

en years ago, in September 1995, we launched the See the forthcoming announcement in the April 2005 issue International Journal with the theme “The Time Is and order your copy. T Right!” A wilderness journal had been discussed for The next ten years of IJW: Where do we go from here? 20 years, but never materialized. Then, with guidance from Our overall goal is to support wilderness designation, man- leading wilderness managers, scientists, and educators, and agement, education, and research with good coverage of encouragement and sponsorship from all the wilderness relevant information. There is no shortage of topics. agencies and leading wilderness organizations (see the back We are heartened by the increasing worldwide support cover), the first issue appeared. for wilderness, but concerned by many threats to wilder- The WILD Foundation volunteered financial management ness resources and experiences: global warming; a shrinking and international distribution. Fulcrum Publishing provided base of candidate areas; the loss of wild corridors between production at cost, including our trademark color covers. designated areas; threats from modern technology such as IJW would be a different kind of journal, blending topical cell phones and towers and new mechanical access devices; articles on wilderness issues; invited features; peer reviewed overuse and loss of solitude in popular areas; nonconform- manuscripts on wilderness planning, management, science, ing uses such as grazing, mining, wildlife, and stock and education; plus book reviews and a digest of news and watering devices and inholdings; compromises proposed announcements. We’re grateful to our sponsors and our board to make wilderness designation possible; and commercial of executive editors. Without them we wouldn’t be here. and public wilderness recreation demand versus the orga- The first decade of IJW: How to evaluate this first decade nized use of wilderness for education, personal growth, of IJW? We need objective critique from you, our readers. therapy, and leadership development. These are some of Please browse the issues. Did we cover the big topics— the important wilderness issues and activities we plan to what did we miss? Has IJW been a forum for wilderness cover in the next decade. leaders? How has our research coverage been? Have we aired We transition to this new era in this issue of IJW by new and controversial proposals and policies? How about focusing on a variety of stewardship issues, and especially global wilderness? How do you rate the book reviews and monitoring of some wilderness conditions, in five articles wilderness digest? Are IJW articles being cited and used in that are introduced by Peter Landres. We conclude the stew- university wilderness classes and agency trainings? Does ardship theme with the announcement of the appointment your organization or library subscribe? Do you subscribe— of Mary Wagner as the first national director of wilderness why or why not? Send us your critiques—we’ll read and for the U.S. Forest Service. publish them, space available. To make your IJW review and use easier in the future, JOHN C. HENDEE is the editor in chief of IJW and can be reached we’re producing the first 10 years of IJW issues on a CD. at [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 3 FEATURES

SOUL OF THE WILDERNESS

Human Relationships with Wilderness

The Fundamental Definition of Wilderness Character

BY ALAN E. WATSON

he science that has guided wilderness management of the argument clearly placed great importance on wilder- thus far is not really very old. It couldn’t be. Wil- ness character, there was disagreement on how it should T derness legislation has guided U.S. federal agency be protected. At the time, I assumed that 30 years or so managers since 1964. My own introduction to wilderness into the future, this debate would be settled. It isn’t. Today research was when I we still are in great disagreement—not over the value of stumbled onto a series wilderness character, but on how to protect it in wilder- of debate articles by ness. Rather than be disappointed about that, maybe we some of the few people should celebrate it. engaged in early wilder- In the year 2001, I was confronted by another dilemma ness research during my equally basic to the question of how to protect wilderness freshman year of college character. At an international symposium in Alaska, very in the mid-1970s (Hendee early in the program a university student expressed sincere and Lucas 1973). What interest in attending mostly to resolve his confusion over caught my attention was exactly what is wilderness. Although in my introductory not the clarity or strength comments I had contrasted the definition of wilderness of the science supporting contained in the U.S. Wilderness Act of 1964 with that the debated topic, but contained in World Conservation Union (IUCN) descrip- just the contrary. I could tions of wilderness places and objectives (see Martin and easily identify with both Watson 2002), this student was clearly confused by the Article author Alan E. Watson, photo by B. Roukema. sides of a debate for and range of attributes and values commonly associated with against requirements for wilderness. And true to this student’s observations, much permits for recreational visits to wilderness. The lack of a of the literature on wilderness, and even terminology within clear, easy-to-defend solution to the dilemma these scien- the U.S. Wilderness Act, commonly attempts to define tists described evaded both positions, yet the arguments wilderness through a single universal set of purposes, each both for and against were highly emotional ones. The “char- of which could also be received in many locations besides acter” of wilderness, it was clear to my young mind, was wilderness, and which may not be received in every area something very different to different people (see Figure 1). protected as wilderness. The basic element that excited me about this debate was It was not until a couple of months later during that same the weighing of structure, articulation of protection ben- summer, while traveling through the Alaska night from above efits, and control associated with permits against the Arctic Circle to Anchorage, that the dilemma solved it- spontaneity, freedom, and uncertainty. Whereas both sides self for me. Although I had felt insecure, undeserving,

4 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 uncertain somehow about how to answer Is Wilderness Character define wilderness character from their this student and many others who had in Black and White own orientation toward it. The Wilder- repeatedly voiced the same question, ness Act in the United States provides a it became clear to me during that night or Living Color? definition from one particular orienta- drive that what attracted many of us to Measuring observable characteristics of tion, that of the people who engineered wilderness in the first place was the fact the wilderness itself and thinking of it the legislation to capture a definition of that it couldn’t be defined. Wilderness as wilderness character is like a black wilderness character that fit their rela- is difficult to define, yet it has nearly and white photo. There is no under- tionship with wilderness. It was universal and immediate appeal. That standing, no depth of meaning, and described as a place where humans do is the reason debates like the one de- little insight into the values of that wil- not remain, where they return from to scribed earlier can be such a dilemma, derness. Focusing on human their urban homes at the end of a trip. It and why many people remain confused relationships with wilderness, however, is a place where they can go to find soli- about what wilderness means. It is dif- gives color to the image. Although re- tude or exhibit primitive skills, much in ficult to describe in a universal way lationships with wilderness vary, they contrast to their daily urban lives. It is a exactly for whom we are protecting wil- are definable. Defining these relation- place where they can assume they are derness, what is being protected in ships provides direction to protecting witnessing natural processes as a domi- wilderness, why it is being protected, or restoring them, and through focus nant force, and they can assume that and from what it is being protected. on relationships people have with wil- humans have not intervened and are not Wilderness, therefore, means different derness, the impossible task of defining intervening directly to influence the things to different people. When we try wilderness in black and white terms is landscape. Not everyone describes wil- too hard to define it precisely, we are at avoided. Wilderness character becomes derness character along these same risk of losing meaning for some people. a concept that is used to describe the dimensions, however. Recent research Much as Leopold found in his essay on relationship one particular person or by Whiting (2004) illustrates these dif- the “River of the Mother of God,” when social group has with wilderness, or the ferences. Native villagers in the western we find what we are looking for, we multitude of these relationships. Arctic of Alaska value wilderness for may have lost something (Flader and spiritual, emotional, and humility rea- Callicott 1992). Who Is It Protected For? sons, and it contributes to their identity Through the past 10 years of my Some of us have gravitated toward to go there and engage in hunting and work to help the International Journal of referring to the different people or groups gathering activities. These are not pur- Wilderness succeed, knowledge develop- of people with a stake in wilderness as poses described in the U.S. Wilderness ment as a federal scientist since 1988, stakeholders. They are not simply cus- Act because they were not the type of and a career of deep involvement with tomers, they are not necessarily users relationship the authors of the act had university programs, the strength of my or visitors. There are many different with wilderness. confidence in the conclusion that one types of people with very different rela- of the primary values of wilderness to tionships to wilderness. They can What Is Protected? society is its difficulty to be defined has include recreation users, but also in- Different groups of stakeholders also use only increased. I am suggesting that we clude those interested in wilderness for different terminology to describe the at- acknowledge and celebrate that wilder- its scientific values, those depending tributes, or qualities, of a place that ness character implies different things upon wilderness resources for subsis- embodies wilderness character. In the to different people, and approach the tence, those for whom wilderness is United States, the Wilderness Act challenge of defining wilderness char- part of their lifestyles and not a diver- speaks of wilderness being untram- acter through describing, understand- sion, and those distant urban residents meled, whereas in South Africa, the ing, and even monitoring the who depend upon wilderness water- term uncorrupted has been used to de- relationship people have with wilder- sheds for crucial water supplies. scribe wilderness character by some ness. This type of research may offer There is no single, easy-to-define parts of that society (Shroyer, Watson, more insight into the fundamental defi- stakeholder group to go to for a defini- and Muir 2003). Untrammeled sug- nition of wilderness character than have tion of wilderness because there are gests a landscape that is not tampered efforts aimed at monitoring aspects of many different types of relationships with, unfettered, and unmanipulated, the wilderness itself. with wilderness, and most people will although all factions may agree that this

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 5 alien plants, natural hydrologic cycles, or meanings that different stakehold- and lack of all sources of erosion. ers ascribe to areas protected for their wilderness character. Some of the val- Why Is It Protected? ues associated with wilderness in the The values, or reasons for protection, circumpolar north, for example, are that different stakeholder groups as- very similar to those associated with cribe to wilderness places can also be wilderness in other latitudes, but some very different. Wilderness simply are very unique (Alessa and Watson means different things to different 2002). They are unique to the local people. A simple illustration of this is rural people with a long history of as- the description by many people of sociation with these areas, as they are Figure 1—Debates over requiring permits to visit wilderness represent different relationships with wilderness. Photo courtesy Alaska wildlands as some of our wild- unique to the distant populations of of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research Institute. est places on the North American the world who receive very different continent and in the U.S. National Wil- benefits from their protection. is only a perceptual attribute. In reality, derness Preservation System (Watson, there was long-term intervention by in- Kneeshaw, and Glaspell 2004). By What Are We digenous people to increase their worldwide standards, these vast, rela- Protecting Wilderness From? chances for survival, and perpetual in- tively intact ecosystems are among the Perceptions of wilderness character dif- tervention by more modern society to wildest. However, they differ from most fer and can partially be defined by the manipulate game populations, influence wilderness areas in the continental forces of change that are believed to the role of fire in the ecosystem, and cre- United States by the fact that traditional influence it. Historically, wilderness ate travel corridors for human travel, relationships between rural people and management research has focused on the even if by primitive means. Uncorrupted these wilderness places were assured threat posed by one dominant force, that is also a perceptual attribute, related to through the Alaska National Interest of recreation use (Watson and Williams the purpose of a human intervention on Lands Conservation Act (ANILCA) of 1995). An expansion of interest to other the land or water. If the human impact 1980. Native and nonnative, rural threats is fairly new, but most of this is done to support privatization or com- people continue to travel through work remains focused on understand- mercialization of nature at the expense these lands to hunt, fish, gather, learn, ing the threat to wilderness attributes, of spiritual or intrinsic values associated and teach younger generations about not to the meanings people receive from with that wild place, it becomes cor- interacting with the resources there. interaction with wilderness places rupted. Distant urban populations You are, however, more likely to find (Landres, Cole, and Watson 1994). In would probably be uninterested in both aircraft use for access, human-built the circumpolar north, some unique in- trammeling and corruption, and more dwellings, and other motorized forms fluences on wilderness values are likely define wilderness character of a of access there than in areas not es- believed to include the lack of apprecia- water catchment in terms of a lack of tablished as wilderness through tion of multiple orientations toward ANILCA. Humans are at home in this wilderness resources, energy exploration landscape, they leave much more than and development, north-south region- their footprints, and the skills they use alism and political conflict, fragility of to travel and harvest resources here are ecosystems, and pressures related to not considered by them to be primitive, tourism development, in addition to but instead well developed—crucial to other forces (Alessa and Watson 2002). survival of whole communities. In many places around the world, including Conclusions Alaska, inhabited wilderness implies a Our mandated responsibility extends very different set of values than the ones beyond stewardship of our transactions described in the U.S. Wilderness Act with wilderness—like counting the

Figure 2—Inhabited wilderness implies a very different set of (see Figure 2). number of campsites we find in an area values from the ones described in the U.S. Wilderness Act. Photo Recently organized efforts have in- or the number of people we encounter courtesy of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. cluded attempts to define the values during a hike there—to stewardship of

6 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 the relationship people have with this marketing: A focus on the relationships be- From BOOK REVIEW page 48 area. Collectively, we motivated our tween the public and public lands. Journal of Park and Recreation Administration, congressional representatives to create 20(2): 49–68. bugs there would be people all over the this system of wilderness on our be- Flader, S. L. and J. B. Callicott, eds. 1992. The place” (p. 21). This statement alludes half and for future generations. Only River of the Mother of God and Other Es- says by Aldo Leopold. Madison, WI: The to a theme that runs through the entire recently has it been recognized that University of Wisconsin Press. book: the Barrens are unique and “spe- many evaluations by the public of wil- Hendee, J. C. and R. C. Lucas. 1973. Manda- cial” in their wilderness state. derness policy are rooted in larger tory wilderness permits: A necessary man- Parts IV through VI offer a look at contexts than just individual visits to a agement tool. Journal of Forestry, 71(4): 206–209. the human side of the Barrens, such as wilderness (Borrie and others 2002; James, S. 2001. We are the ones who have the memorable characters and places in Watson and Borrie 2003). everything to lose. In H. Lentfer, and C. the region and the way Hall’s family has A new era of stewardship is facing us, Servid, comps. Arctic Refuge: A circle of been affected. The seventh and final part not only with expectations of stewarding Testimony. Minneapolis, MN: Milkweed Edi- tions: 3–5. examines and summarizes how the en- our public lands, but also with us becom- Landres, P., D. Cole, and A. Watson. 1994. A joyment of paddling Arctic rivers is ing deeply cognizant of our role in monitoring strategy for the National Wilder- connected with its conservation. Thirty stewarding the relationship between the ness Preservation System. In J. C. Hendee, and V. G. Martin, eds. International Wil- years of canoe tripping has allowed Hall public and public lands. Local commu- derness Allocation, Management, and Re- to experience the increase in tourists and nities are vocal in their assertion that we search. Fort Collins, CO: International how the north has adapted to growing need to understand the values they re- Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation: tourism. Throughout it all, Hall and oth- ceive from wilderness and other lands and 192–197. Martin, V. and A. Watson. 2002. International ers have fought to protect the Barrens demonstrate to them that we consider Wilderness. In Hendee, J. and C. Dawson, for its wildlife and intrinsic value. Hall these values in making decisions, while Wilderness Management. Fulcrum Publishing, points out protection and activism also meeting the primary intent of the leg- Golden, CO: 49–99. battles won in the past, perhaps in hopes islation and policy that guide us in our Shroyer, M., A. Watson, and A. Muir. 2003. Wilderness research in South Africa: Defin- that they will inspire others to act in the management decisions. Wilderness char- ing priorities at the intersection of qualities, future. Major tracts of land have been acter is perceptual, with different people threats, values, and stakeholders. Interna- saved, but in a changing world with tional Journal of Wilderness 9(1): 41–45. perceiving it very differently, and these changing politics, for how long? perceptions are bound to be changing Watson, Alan E. and William T. Borrie. 2003. Applying public purpose marketing in the Overall, Discovering Eden is an enjoy- through time. Our jobs as scientists in- USA to protect relationships with public able read; a light-hearted but valuable clude providing adequate understanding land. In Nature-based Tourism, Environ- contribution to literature on wilderness of the range of these relationships with ment and land management. R. Buckley, C. Pickering, and D. B. Weaver. Oxon, UK, conservation. The personal accounts and wilderness places and the things that in- and Cambridge, MA: CABI Publishing: humorous tales also present a strong mes- fluence them, in a way that enables 25–33. sage that even if you are only one managers to set objectives for protection, Watson, A. E., K. Kneeshaw, and B. Glaspell, conservationist and you persist, then per- and even restoration, of human relation- comps. 2004. A taste of the north: Voices from the wilderness about the wilderness haps your determination will be rewarded. ships with wilderness landscapes. character of Alaska. International Journal of As Hall notes, “The choices we make in Wilderness 10(2): 4–7. the next decade or two may well deter- Watson, A. E. and D. R. Williams. 1995. Pri- REFERENCES mine how much biological diversity Alessa, L., and A. E. Watson. 2002. Growing orities for human experience research in pressures on circumpolar north wilderness: wilderness. TREND/Wilderness Research, persists over the next hundred, thousand A case for coordinated research and edu- 32(1): 14–18. or even million years. … Only through cation. In A.E. Watson, L. Alessa, and J. Whiting, A. 2004. The relationship between the foresight and sheer determination of a Qikiktagrugmiut (Kotzebue Tribal members) Sproull, comps. Wilderness in the Circum- coalition of northerners and other Cana- polar North: Searching for Compatibility in and the Western Arctic Parklands, Alaska, Ecological, Traditional, and Ecotourism Val- United States. International Journal of Wil- dians will an Eden this large be preserved ues. May 15-16, 2001, Anchorage, AK. derness, 10(2): 28–31, 8. intact for future generations” (p. 216). Proceedings RMRS-P-26. Ogden, UT: U.S. ALAN E. WATSON is an executive editor Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Reviewed by PATRICK MAHER, a Canadian Rocky Mountain Research Station. of the International Journal of Wilderness Ph.D. candidate at Lincoln University, New Borrie, William T., Neal Christensen, Alan E. and research scientist at the Aldo Leopold Zealand, examining the experience of Watson, Theron Miller, and Daniel W. Wilderness Research Institute in Missoula, visitors to the Ross Sea region, Antarctica. McCollum. 2002. Public purpose recreation Montana. E-mail: [email protected]. E-mail: [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 7 STEWARDSHIP

Developing Indicators to Monitor the “Outstanding Opportunities” Quality of Wilderness Character

BY PETER LANDRES

ilderness managers are often faced with diffi- (1) fulfilling the statutory mandates of the 1964 Wilder- cult and complex tasks. One such task is ness Act and subsequent wilderness legislation, and (2) to W fulfilling the legal mandate of the 1964 Wil- improve wilderness stewardship. The 1964 Wilderness Act derness Act (Public Law 88-577) to provide opportunities mandates agency responsibility for preserving wilderness for use and enjoyment of wilderness while protecting and character. Section 2(a) states that wilderness areas “shall be preserving the wilderness character of the area. The ideas administered for the use and enjoyment of the American of use and enjoyment and wilderness character are expres- people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for sions of societal values for wilderness, but we lack a full future use and enjoyment as wilderness, and so as to provide understanding of what these ideas mean. As a result, it may for the protection of these areas, the preservation of their wil- be difficult for managers to evaluate the success of their derness character” (emphasis added). In addition, legal accomplishments as well as some of the far-reaching out- scholars Rohlf and Honnold (1988) and McCloskey (1999) comes of their decisions and actions in wilderness. assert that Section 4(b) gives the primary management di- This article describes an effort by the USDA Forest Ser- rection for wilderness agencies, that “each agency vice Wilderness Monitoring Committee to develop national administering any area designated as wilderness shall be protocols to monitor trends in selected conditions and stew- responsible for preserving the wilderness character of the ardship actions related to wilderness character. An important area.” This assertion is reinforced by the Congressional Record part of this effort is to develop monitoring related to the “out- (U.S. Congress 1983): “The overriding principle guiding standing opportunities for solitude or a primitive and management of all wilderness areas, regardless of which unconfined type of recreation” dimension of wilderness char- agency administers them, is the Wilderness Act (section acter. This article then describes the purpose and scope of a 4(b)) mandate to preserve their wilderness character.” workshop held in February 2004 to develop a better under- Monitoring wilderness character provides information to help standing of these “outstanding opportunities” that would be improve wilderness stewardship in several ways. First, describing used in developing this monitoring. Last, the article intro- wilderness character in tangible terms allows planners and manag- duces several perspectives from the workshop on this ers at all administrative levels to evaluate potential impacts of dimension of wilderness character. proposed actions and decisions on this fundamental wilderness concept and ideal. Second, a formal monitoring program allows Why Monitor Wilderness Character? the information to become a legacy that managers may then use to Although several agency programs (e.g., air, water, wildlife) evaluate trends in how wilderness character is changing over long monitor a variety of resources in wilderness, none systemati- periods of time that may span many careers. Third, using nation- cally monitors at the national scale what makes wilderness ally consistent monitoring protocols allows the information to be unique among all other lands—its wilderness character. There compiled at the regional and national levels to help program are two basic reasons for monitoring wilderness character: managers review and revise current programs and policies.

8 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 What Is Framework is currently under review Wilderness Character? and will be published in late 2004. The committee, through subject-matter ex- The 1964 Wilderness Act doesn’t de- perts and their associated teams, is fine wilderness character, there is no currently developing detailed monitor- legislative history on the meaning of ing protocols—the what, when, where, this phrase (Scott 2002), and there are and how data will be collected and many meanings and ways to describe used—in the “Technical Guide for wilderness character. For the purpose Monitoring Selected Conditions Re- of monitoring, wilderness character lated to Wilderness Character.” can be described as the combination The Framework develops a set of of biophysical, experiential, and sym- logical steps linking the statutory re- bolic ideals that distinguishes quirement to preserve wilderness wilderness from all other lands. These character ultimately with indicators ideals combine to form a complex and and measures (See Figure 1). This fig- subtle set of relationships among the ure, and the logic behind it, forms a land, its management, and the mean- conceptual model that is the basis for Figure 1—The conceptual or logical basis for this monitoring ings people associate with wilderness. this monitoring effort. The two ele- effort, showing the inferences (arrows) used to develop the There are certain aspects of these indicators and measures. The arrows show that the statutory ments of this figure enclosed by the requirement to preserve wilderness character drives selection of biophysical, experiential, and symbolic box are derived directly from the 1964 all the subsequent elements and ultimately the data that are ideals that apply to every wilderness collected. Wilderness Act, whereas the Commit- because all wilderness legislation con- tee developed the four elements tains a provision that ties management • “Natural—wilderness ecological outside the box. The first step uses the of the specific wilderness back to the systems are substantially free from Section 2(c) Definition of Wilderness provisions of the 1964 Wilderness Act the effects of modern civilization. to identify specific qualities of wilder- (Hendee and Dawson 2002). Although • “Undeveloped”—wilderness is sub- ness that are related to the concept of individual wilderness acts often include stantially without permanent wilderness character. Each of these specific exceptions or special provi- improvements or modern human legislative qualities of wilderness is sions, for example allowing the use of occupation. sequentially broken down into a set motorized vehicles or installations in • “Outstanding opportunities for soli- of relevant monitoring questions, in- particular wildernesses, no act changes tude or a primitive and unconfined dicators, and measures. This the 1964 Wilderness Act, Section 2(c) type of recreation”—wilderness pro- hierarchical approach ensures that key Definition of Wilderness or the Section vides opportunities for people to national indicators and measures are 4(b) mandate for “preserving the wil- experience solitude or primitive logically linked to the Section 2(c) derness character of the area” (Hendee and unconfined recreation, includ- Definition of Wilderness, and by in- and Dawson 2002). There are also ing the values of inspiration and ference to wilderness character. unique, place-dependent aspects of physical and mental challenge. This first step derives four legisla- these same ideals that apply to each tive qualities of wilderness that were These four qualities mutually reinforce wilderness. chosen to represent the most general one another and together comprise an level of the different concepts and ide- approximation of wilderness character How Will Wilderness als, and sometimes the subtle for the purposes of this national moni- Character Be Monitored? distinctions among them, from Section toring program. All four of these qualities The Forest Service Wilderness Moni- 2(c) of the Wilderness Act. These quali- are equally important, and none is held toring Committee developed the ties, quoted from the 1964 Wilderness in higher regard or to a higher level of conceptual foundation for this moni- Act and followed by the Committee’s stewardship than the others. toring in the draft “Monitoring Selected interpretation of this quality, are: This monitoring provides informa- Conditions Related to Wilderness Char- • “Untrammeled”—wilderness is un- tion about whether selected indicators acter: A National Framework” hindered and free from modern related to these four qualities of wil- (hereafter called the Framework). This human control or manipulation. derness, and by inference to wilderness

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 9 Figure 2—Olympic Wilderness in summer with Mt. Olympus the third largest glacial system in the conterminous United States. Photo by Bryan Bell and courtesy of National Park Service, Olympic National Park, Wilderness Information Center.

character, are stable, improving, or quality is actions that manipulate veg- date, or modify as needed, the degrading over time within an indi- etation, wildlife, or aquatic systems. Committee’s conceptualization of this vidual wilderness. No national Forest Service administrative processes “outstanding opportunities” quality. standards will be developed because already track actions, hence there is no Second, participants would identify a every wilderness is unique in its bio- cost to collect data for this indicator, potential set of indicators that the team physical, social, legislative, and and trends in the number of these developing this quality for the Tech- administrative setting (see Figure 2). actions over time provide direct feed- nical Guide would use as a starting Moreover, change in the indicators is back to managers on their manage- point. An additional purpose of the determined only relative to prior con- ment for this untrammeled quality of workshop, if time allowed, was to ditions within a particular wilderness; wilderness. Similarly, a process for re- identify information needs and de- standards and trigger points for action cording most constructed features velop a research agenda for this quality can therefore only be determined by such as system trails, signs, recreation of wilderness. each wilderness. developments, or administrative struc- To facilitate discussion the work- Key national indicators of selected tures is already established so there shop was limited to a small number conditions and stewardship actions will is no additional cost for tracking of people, and included six wilderness be chosen for each of these four quali- trends in this potential indicator of the managers, two agency scientists, and ties of wilderness. These indicators will undeveloped quality of wilderness six academic social scientists. The apply to all wildernesses regardless of over time. workshop was structured around dis- their location, size, ecosystems, use, or cussion of the following questions, place-dependent aspects. Although A Workshop to Develop which set the goals for monitoring this potential indicators are identified in the Indicators for the “outstanding opportunities” quality of Framework document, teams develop- wilderness: ing the Technical Guide will choose the “Outstanding Opportunities” • What are the meanings and indi- final indicators. Indicators will be cho- Quality of Wilderness cators of solitude? sen primarily based on three criteria: The Committee felt that the best way • What are the meanings and indi- (1) relevance to the wilderness quality, to approach developing indicators for cators of primitive recreation? (2) usefulness to local wilderness man- the “outstanding opportunities” qual- • What are the meanings and indi- agers, and (3) feasibility of using data ity of wilderness would be to convene cators of unconfined recreation? that are already being collected or could a workshop of scientists and manag- be collected with little or no extra cost ers who had direct experience with To develop potential indicators for as part of an existing monitoring pro- this quality of wilderness. There were these monitoring questions, the fol- gram. For example, the primary poten- two purposes for this workshop. First, lowing constraints were imposed on tial indicator for the untrammeled participants would review and vali- selecting indicators: (1) they would

10 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 apply to any wilderness throughout ity of wilderness. However, partici- the National Wilderness Preservation pants also felt that a deeper and better System (see Figure 3) and not to the understanding of these foundational place-dependent aspects of a particu- concepts of wilderness is sorely lar wilderness; (2) they would be needed. Workshop discussions clearly useful to local managers and apply to showed a variety of opinions about the the entire wilderness; and (3) they dimensions that could be, and should would measure the opportunities for be monitored within this quality of experiences but not the experiences wilderness. There was considerable themselves. discussion about these and related is- Figure 3—Great Sand Dunes Wilderness managed by National This last constraint is crucial and sues, including: Park Service (CO). Photo courtesy of NPS. requires some explanation. The 1964 • whether the single “outstanding Wilderness Act mandates that managers opportunities” quality should be provide “outstanding opportunities” split into three separate qualities for certain types of experiences. Man- of solitude, primitive recreation, agers have a profound impact on the and unconfined recreation; wilderness setting by what they do as • whether the language from East- well as what they don’t do, and moni- ern Wilderness Act of 1975 (Public toring this quality provides managers Law 93-622) on “physical and information on how their actions af- mental challenge” and “inspira- fect the setting for these types of tion” applies to all wildernesses experiences. This setting directly af- and therefore should be part of this Figure 4—Washington Islands Wilderness managed by the U.S. fects, in both positive and negative national monitoring effort; Fish and Wildlife Service (WA). Photo courtesy of USFWS. ways, the opportunity for visitors to • whether monitoring should focus have certain types of wilderness ex- on the opportunities for wilderness contentious task, one that requires periences (see Figure 4). For example, experiences or the experiences thoughtful and deliberative discus- requiring visitors to use designated themselves, or both; sion among managers, scientists, and campsites reduces resource damage, • whether monitoring should focus the public. Much of this discussion but also reduces opportunities for ex- on the needs of local wildernesses applies to wilderness and similar periencing the unconfined quality of versus national monitoring; and backcountry areas around the world wilderness. Providing shelters or toi- • how actions taken to protect one that may have objectives comparable let facilities reduces resource damage, aspect of this quality may (and to the U.S. National Wilderness Pres- but also restricts opportunities for the often do) negatively impact a ervation System. primitive aspect of wilderness experi- different aspect of this same In the articles that follow, Chad ences. Providing a bridge across a wild quality. Dawson shares his perspectives on the river allows visitors to experience parts nature of solitude, potential indicators, of the wilderness they may not other- The following articles provide and research questions about indica- wise be able to, but also reduces readers with an understanding of the tors of solitude; Steve McCool looks opportunities for the challenge and different perspectives that exist on at unconfined recreation by exploring discovery that comes from fording the these issues. The variety of views ex- a commonly experienced vignette; Bill river. (David Cole explores these is- pressed demonstrates that there are Borrie examines the assumptions be- sues in greater detail in his article different ways of looking at these core hind the idea of primitive recreation; entitled “Wilderness Experiences.”) values of wilderness, and perhaps and Joe Roggenbuck offers a detailed Workshop participants generally even more importantly that this vari- exploration of the origin, benefits, felt that there is sufficient scientific ety is an important and vital part of threats, and indicators of primitive rec- understanding to begin developing wilderness. The variety of these per- reation. David Cole completes this set indicators of the “outstanding oppor- spectives also suggests that managing of articles with thoughts about what tunities for solitude or a primitive and for this quality of wilderness charac- unconfined type of recreation” qual- ter is fundamentally a difficult and Continued on page 20

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 11 STEWARDSHIP

Monitoring Outstanding Opportunities For Solitude

BY CHAD P. DAWSON

Introduction Historically, visitor density and group-to-group encounters The legislative definition of wilderness in the United States were considered to be the best guide for determining if there includes the requirement for several specific characteris- were opportunities for solitude and to use in correlation tics or conditions, including “has outstanding opportunities with visitors’ self-reported achievement of solitude for solitude” (P.L. 88-577, Sec. 2c). Since solitude is a dis- (Gramann 1982). Visitor research has shown relatively weak tinguishing characteristic of wilderness, the various statistical relationships between some wilderness conditions interpretations of its meaning have led to a substantial (e.g., visitor density, group-to-group encounters) and visi- amount of management discussion and research to define tor experiences (e.g., perceptions of crowding, achievement or measure its important components. This article’s em- of solitude and privacy, group-to-group conflicts). How- phasis is on the characteristics or conditions that can be ever, there exists enough published information to support managed in wilderness areas and that are necessary for visi- the concept that certain density and encounter conditions tors to achieve solitude. It is also recognized that the visitor’s are related to perceptions of crowding or achievement of experience of solitude (e.g., psychological-social experi- solitude as an outcome or experience (Manning 1985 and ences) and achievement of solitude are important, but they 1999; Patterson and Hammitt 1990; Hollenhorst, Frank, are not the subject of this article. and Watson 1994; Watson 1995; Stewart and Cole 2001). Solitude in the context of wilderness does not mean com- Privacy is a concept related to solitude and is consid- plete isolation, nor is solitude at the other end of a ered to focus on a group experience; provide freedom of continuum from crowded. Rather, it has been construed to choice in social settings; have an element of reducing vul- mean separation from others and the influences of others. nerability to others outside the group; and to include some The conditions necessary for solitude often refer to some degree of autonomy from other groups (Hammitt and Mad- degree of separation in sight, sound, and distance between den 1989). Privacy includes solitude as one of its visitor groups who are within the wilderness and from out- dimensions, and Hammitt and Rutlin (1995) argue that side the wilderness (see Figure 1). The word solitude is privacy may be a better concept to use when studying visi- generally used to refer to a small group of people—some- tor-to-visitor encounters because it includes aspects of social times solitary individuals—who are separated from other control, freedom of choice, management of interactions with groups and encounter relatively few other groups of visi- others, and solitude. Although studies of privacy have pro- tors along trails (e.g., away from access points), at hiking vided some insights into the concept of solitude, the destinations (e.g., lakes, vistas, and landscape features), and Wilderness Act specifically refers to solitude. at campsites for overnight visitors. Crowding and conges- Coping mechanisms used by visitors to maintain solitude tion at access points can affect the opportunities for solitude. or privacy have been studied as a way to see how visitors maxi- Solitude is not the only appeal of wilderness, and for many mize their experiences while in wilderness (Hammitt and visitors it is not the most important condition; however, it Patterson 1991; Johnson and Dawson 2004). Coping mecha- is an expected condition by many visitors. nisms include changes in physical behavior (e.g., spatial and Research on wilderness visitors supports the importance temporal choices) and changes in social behavior (e.g., avoid- of solitude as a condition or characteristic of wilderness ing social interaction, cognitive coping). Measuring coping and as an experience achieved, to some degree, by visitors. mechanism use is an indirect approach to understand the

12 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 conflicts, hassles, and disruptions in soli- measure wilderness conditions related tude that were experienced by visitors. to solitude include three categories of Quantifying these impediments and indicators. limitations to solitude may be easier to 1. Presence of others: measure than solitude or privacy • Mean number of group-to-group achievement and could provide insights encounters per day along main and into what detracts from outstanding secondary trails (i.e., away from ac- opportunities for solitude (i.e., indicator cess points). of the lack of outstanding opportunities • Mean number of group-to-group for solitude). encounters per day at hiking des- Various indicators of the quality of tinations (e.g., lakes, vistas, and Figure 1—Hikers approaching South Sister in the Three Sisters Wilderness managed by the U.S. Forest Service (OR). Photo by recreation experiences in wilderness landscape features). Chad Dawson. have been used and proposed to help • Number of nights camped out of managers monitor if they are provid- sight and sound of others at desig- •Average time spent within sight ing wilderness characteristics through nated campsites (i.e., for overnight and sound of others during wilder- management activities and regulations visitors). ness travel. (Manning and Lime 2000). The use • Percentage occupancy per night at Measurement of some indicators, like of indicators is well known in the Lim- designated campsites. encounters, may require complex moni- its of Acceptable Change planning • Mean number of visitors per mile toring protocols (Watson, Cronin, and process; however, selection of indica- each day on main and secondary Christensen 1998) due to different types tors and monitoring them is not trails by weekday and weekend of use, users, and equipment that may common. Monitoring activities are in- day and by season. be mixed together in some locations and creasing across a wide range of 2. Separation from sights and sounds situations (e.g., pack-stock users and day wilderness planning and management originating outside wilderness hikers, wilderness experience adventure situations due to the development and and infrastructure within wilder- program boaters and fly-fishing trout an- use of indicator variables by research- ness (see Figure 2): glers). Since access points and the ers over the last several decades • Percentage of wilderness area that associated congestion are not typical of (Hendee and Dawson 2002). is out of sight and sound of hu- interior wilderness areas and are not rep- man activities originating from resentative of encounter conditions for Monitoring outside the wilderness. the area, monitoring the uneven distri- Wilderness Solitude • Percentage of wilderness area that bution within wilderness is necessary. The conditions in wilderness are of pri- is more than one-quarter mile from Other complexities include the fact that mary concern to managers because they all wilderness facilities and struc- recognizing and defining groups travel- are required to directly manage for soli- tures (e.g., lean-tos, ranger cabins). ing together may not be the same as how tude opportunities in wilderness. The • Percentage of wilderness area that the group defines itself (e.g., a larger type of use by visitors, number of en- is more than one-square mile from backpacking group may be made up of counters with other visitors, visitor all wilderness trails. density, and location and distribution of •Average number of structures per use are subject to monitoring and con- acre (e.g., campsites, bridges) in trol by managers who may establish the wilderness. visitor use levels to protect wilderness 3. Disruption, conflict, or negative solitude. For example, as one measure behaviors of others that reduces of wilderness solitude, managers may solitude: monitor users to estimate the number • Number of enforcement citations of parties encountered per day by a issued per year within an area. group while traveling on trails or water- • Percentage of visitors who changed trip ways in wilderness. plans due to the behavior of others. Figure 2—Looking over Dillion Reservoir to the Eagle’s Nest Some of examples of the potential • Percentage of visitors who changed trip Wilderness managed by the U.S. Forest Service (CO). Photo by indicators that managers can use to plans due to management actions. Chad Dawson.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 13 comparisons between various data Solitude is not the only appeal of wilderness, and for collection techniques under different situational factors have not been con- many visitors it is not the most important condition; ducted to assist managers in understanding the various ways that however, it is an expected condition by many visitors. an indicator can be appropriately used. It seems that while the conversations a fast-moving sub group and a slow- dicator is measured per hour or per day about indicators and the apparent moving subgroup of hikers and only or at the most heavily used times of the need for their use has been widely recombine at the campsite), and such day, week, or month all require differ- engaged, the utilization of the indica- a distinction is fundamental to mea- ent interpretation. Monitoring of tors has been limited by the suring separation in sight, sound, and visitor-to-visitor encounters on trails and development of practical and tested distance between unrelated individu- destinations is best conducted accurately data collection techniques. als and groups. and reliably by different methods (e.g., There are numerous challenges and trained observers, time-lapse photogra- REFERENCES barriers to monitoring the indicators. phy) under different circumstances. This Gramann, James H. 1982. Toward a behav- ioral theory of crowding in outdoor recre- For example, it cannot be assumed that example is further complicated by the ation: An evaluation and synthesis of all encounters are similar in type, be- fact that there may be different types of research. Leisure Sciences, 5(2): 109–126. cause some group-to-group encounters use, users, and equipment mixed to- Hammitt, William E., and M. A. Madden. 1989. Cognitive dimensions of wilderness privacy: may include conflicts in goals or activi- gether in some locations and situations A field test and further explanation. Leisure ties whereas others may not. Also, the (i.e., encounters between similar users Sciences, 11: 293–301. perceptions reported by visitors in sur- may be more tolerated than encounters Hammitt, William E., and M. E. Patterson, 1991. veys and interviews are not easy to with different types of users). Coping behavior to avoid visitor encounters: Its relationship to wild land privacy. Journal interpret for monitoring wilderness con- Although there are many studies of Leisure Research, 23(3): 225–237. ditions as these are visitor experiences that have identified potential indica- Hammitt, William E., and W. M. Rutlin. 1995. and not wilderness conditions; visitor tors (Manning and Lime 2000), better Use encounter standards and curves for experiences are influenced by a wide understanding is needed about how achieved privacy in wilderness. Leisure Sci- ences, 17(4): 245–62. variety of intervening psychological, to select appropriate indicators in dif- Hendee, John C., and Chad P. Dawson. 2002. social, experience use history, and envi- ferent situations and how to assess the Wilderness Management: Stewardship and ronmental factors. The wilderness best method for measurement of the Protection of Resources and Values (3rd ed.). Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. condition indicators monitored by man- selected indicator. In addition, better Hollenhorst, S., E. Frank III, and A. Watson. agers need to be quantifiable variables information is needed about the dif- 1994. The capacity to be alone: Wilderness like actual group-to-group encounter ferences between actual wilderness solitude and growth of the self. In J. C. level for a specific wilderness area. conditions for solitude and self-re- Hendee, and V. Martin, eds. International Wilderness Allocation, Management and ported measures of solitude and Research. Fort Collins, CO: International Potential privacy achievement from visitor ex- Wilderness Leadership (WILD) Foundation: Research Questions periences. For example, monitoring 234–239. Johnson, Andrew, and Chad P. Dawson. 2004. One concern is that managers may the solitude experiences of visitors in An exploratory study of the complexities of choose indicators based on other man- wilderness depends on the approach coping behavior in Adirondack wilderness. agement plans or the variables used, since different approaches pro- Leisure Sciences, 26: 281–293. developed by researchers, and they do vide different information (Watson Manning, R. E., and D. W. Lime. 2000. Defining and managing the quality of wilderness rec- and Roggenbuck 1995). not conduct an analysis of the appro- reation experiences. In David N. Cole, Stephen priateness of an indicator for their Substantial progress has been made F. McCool, W. T. Borrie, and J. O’Loughlin. management situation (Watson, in identifying potential indicators of Wilderness Science in a Time of Change— Cronin, and Christensen 1998). The solitude and privacy in wilderness; Volume 4: Wilderness Visitors, Experiences, and Visitor Management. Proc. RMRS-P-15- technical aspects of implementing a however, the selection of specific data Vol-4. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky protocol to use a particular indicator is collection protocols that can be imple- Mountain Research Station: 13–52. more complex than it may seem at first; mented across a series of similar areas for example, whether an encounter in- has yet to be developed. Furthermore, Continued on page 29

14 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness Character and the Notion of an “Unconfined” Experience

BY STEPHEN F. McCOOL

A Vignette increase opportunities for solitude. But would they be im- The two hikers had been on the trail for several days. pacting other dimensions of wilderness experiences? Although absolute solitude was not their primary goal, escape from the pressures, responsibilities, and intrusions of an An Essential Element of a industrialized, and now digitized, society was. Getting away Wilderness Experience from technology and a highly regulated urban scene was Wilderness opportunities are extraordinarily delicate and critical to a good experience and essential to renewing old susceptible to intrusion of others. They are difficult to find friendships. They set up camp in a high mountain glacial and to experience—in the sense that most lands in the cirque, a magnificent and spectacular setting containing a United States are highly developed, show extensive evidence beautiful lake over which their campsite looked. Over the of human occupation, and contain other people, who, sig- next few hours, four other groups with similar interests nificantly, are inescapably subject to thousands of rules and and motives camped around the lake, and by evening, the norms regulating and restricting their daily lives. Relative local atmosphere was clogged by the smoke from five camp- to the population, wilderness landscapes are growing in fires, each established as part of an important and highly scarcity. Although more than 100 million acres are currently desired wilderness ritual. The resulting dissatisfaction with designated, population growth over the next 50 years will the situation was uniform across all five groups. The smoke- reduce the acres available per person. It seems no matter filled cirque was only the symptom, however, of an how friendly adjacent campers may be and no matter how underlying problem, one that permeated the management much they share similar values toward wilderness, they of this wilderness and most others: apparently too many impact in a negative way the experience other campers seek. people seeking experiences that, by their vary character, It is easy to see how these impacts came to be described are not only rare but acutely fragile as well. by the foresters, wildlife managers, and other applied bi- The amount of smoke in the cirque was clearly both ologists who dominated the early management of unpleasant and unacceptable, reducing visibility during the backcountry as an impact on the social carrying capacity of evening twilight hours of the surrounding mountains, for- a wilderness experience. And given that perspective, it is ests, and snowfields—a primary reason for selecting that not a large leap to promulgating rules concerning camp- drainage for the wilderness trip. One could easily conclude fires, developing regulations concerning maximum group that the solution to the problem of smoke pollution was a sizes, proscribing restrictions on where and how long a reduction in campers, leading therefore to a decrease in group may camp in the backcountry, and implementing campfires. In addition, the visible impacts on soil and veg- limits on the numbers of visitors that may experience the etation that signified that a place was also a campsite would backcountry at one time. come to be viewed as a problem of too many people. By These experiences and the response of managers raise prohibiting fires—or by limiting the number of campers— fundamental questions about the capability of wilderness managers could reduce smoke and demand for wood, and settings, in the face of accelerating demand, to provide the

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 15 Since others in this issue of IJW are If wilderness experiences are to be unconfined, what addressing the notion of the primitive dimension of these experiences, I will indicators would a manager monitor to ensure that focus on the concept of an “unconfined” this dimension was not adversely affected? experience. I interpret the word uncon- fined as being the antonym of the word confine. Lacking a specific congressional “outstanding opportunities for solitude ness. If it weren’t, we would assume discussion on this matter (which would or a primitive and unconfined experi- Congress would not have mentioned have reduced the uncertainty of its in- ence” that serve as a primary objective it. And yet, the interest in escaping the tent), we turn to the dictionary of management for designated wilder- pressures, regulations, routines, and (Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1985). Confine, ness in the United States. Would the limiting character of contemporary civi- in this context, means “to set bounds, campers in the preceding vignette be lization is growing. This growing to restrain within limits, to restrict, to able to experience wilderness as Con- interest, combined with the relative limit, to bound, to shut up, to enclose, gress intended in 1964? Are there some scarcity of wilderness and wilderness- to keep close.” It also means to be de- rules that are not as confining as oth- like settings, raises important questions prived of freedom. These terms ers? If confining rules and limits are and concerns about wilderness stew- certainly indicate that a confined rec- necessary, what trade-offs are the camp- ardship. In particular, there are reation opportunity is one that is ers willing to make? Are these trade-offs significant issues about the mandate to limited, restricted, restrained, or oth- similar to managers’ preferences? Are provide opportunities for an “uncon- erwise circumscribed. Thus, an they willing to visit the wilderness un- fined” experience, the subject of this unconfined experience would be un- der any set of rules and regulations? Is brief article. These issues and questions limited, unrestrained, and unrestricted. access to this spectacular setting more hold critical implications for attempts Visitors would enjoy freedom to select important than the conditions under to understand the notion of wilderness campsites, design their own travel which they will experience it? Who character, and resulting consequences routes, hold campfires, and determine should make the decisions, and for for understanding whether stewardship how long they would stay. In the con- whom are they made? What rules are agencies are meeting their responsibili- text of wilderness, the word confine may acceptable to whom? ties under the Wilderness Act. also mean that the visitor has been de- Under some conditions, recrea- Although there are substantial ques- prived of certain freedoms, such as tionists may prefer more rules to fewer tions about the meaning of “outstanding losing the internal locus of control over ones (Frost and McCool 1988). Some opportunities,” there are challenging such decisions as choice of travel route, have argued that the presence of rules dilemmas concerning the phrase “primi- camping location, date of entry, length creates a “fairer” environment for rec- tive and unconfined.” First, there is the of stay, or use of a campfire. reation than their absence (McAvoy and logical question concerning the conjunc- However, this interpretation leads Dustin 1983), as then all visitors fol- tion between the words primitive and to the logical conclusion that steward- low the same protocol rather than just unconfined. Congress did not use the ship agencies would not have the some visitors voluntarily practicing word or; if it had, that would indicate it ability to manage, control, or regulate camping guidelines. But in wilderness viewed each as distinctly separate, but visitors—a ludicrous supposition. This settings, there are distinct experiential would leave the choice of which to pro- thus presents the agencies with a per- trade-offs between intrusive and vide to stewardship agencies. Assuming plexing dilemma. On the one hand, nonintrusive management actions Congress understood the full implica- agencies are required to protect the (McCool and Christensen 1996). And tions of its statement, the logical values for which wilderness is desig- if education or information are pre- conclusion reached from using the word nated, and on the other, providing ferred methods of influencing, rather and is that Congress intended for op- outstanding opportunities for an un- than confining, visitor behavior, how portunities to be both primitive and confined experience may lead to do we do it (Vander Stoep and unconfined. Thus, by using the conjunc- wilderness suffering unacceptable bio- Roggenbuck 1996)? tion and it indicated that these are physical impacts. Managers have the Certainly, the notion of unconfined distinctly separate but potentially related option of managing the impacts of visi- is an important dimension of wilder- qualities of wilderness recreation. tors, regulating their behavior or

16 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 influencing behavior through educa- (Martin 1990). Since monitoring is ori- tion and information (Peterson and ented toward setting conditions, what Lime 1979). But what technique managerial-setting attributes (indica- should they adopt, and what trade-offs tors) can/should be monitored—number occur? A response is that managers of rules, type of rules, location where should adopt the “minimum tool” that rules are enforced? Can the uncon- is effective is addressing a particular fined dimension of a wilderness problem—but is that fair (Dustin and experience be achieved by implement- McAvoy 1984)? ing rules outside the area (limiting Clearly, freedoms are not absolute. access, requiring certain equipment, Figure 1—A lone hiker traveling in the Inyo Mountains Wilderness amount of experience, etc.), then al- during winter; area is managed by the U.S. Forest Service and Like shouting “fire” in a crowded the- Bureau of Land Management (CA). Photo courtesy of USFS. ater, wilderness visitors do not have lowing visitors to make their own the unconditional freedom to do any- choices inside the wilderness? thing they please. And just as clearly, Perhaps monitoring should be di- Frost, J. E., and S. F. McCool. 1988. Can visitor recreation is only one of the permitted rected toward how confined visitors regulations enhance recreational experiences? Environmental Management, 12(1): 5–9. uses of wilderness; it is not necessar- feel. Monitoring is critical when ex- Martin, S. R. 1990. A framework for monitor- ily the dominant permitted use. periences are confined in order to ing experiential conditions in wilderness. In Primitive and unconfined recreation assess the intrusiveness and confining D. W. Lime, ed. Managing America’s En- may only occur if it does not unac- character of management. Through during Wilderness Resource, proceedings of conference Sept. 11–17, 1989 at Minne- ceptably alter wilderness values. It the data and evaluation that monitor- apolis, MN. St. Paul, MN: Tourism Center, would seem then that as a character- ing requires, wilderness stewards University of Minnesota Extension Service, istic of wilderness, the notion of come to understand how rules and 170–175. unconfined is clearly conditional on regulations affect visitors and the will- McAvoy, L. H., and D. L. Dustin. 1983. Indirect versus direct regulation of recreation behav- the capability of the area to support ingness of visitors to accept trade-offs. ior. Journal of Park and Recreation Admin- recreation (see Figure 1). That the notion of unconfined is an istration, 1(2): 12–17. Finally, unconfined is not either/or, important dimension of wilderness is McCool, S. F., and N. A. Christensen. 1996. Alleviating congestion in parks and recre- but rather occurs in degrees. If indeed not a new statement. But, given the ation areas through direct management of the wilderness ideal of an unconfined mandate to protect wilderness char- visitor behavior. In D. W. Lime, ed. Congestion experience is conditional, then good acter and increasing demand for and Crowding in the National Park System: stewardship requires some type of wilderness experiences, we need more Guidelines for Management and Research. MAES Misc. Pub. 86-1996. St. Paul, MN: control, but such controls, rules, or re- debate and deliberation not only about Department of Forest Resources and Minne- strictions should be the minimum what it means, but how it is integrated sota Agriculture Experiment Station, University needed to accomplish clearly specified into other dimensions of wilderness of Minnesota: 67–83. and agreed-upon objectives. Until and how this element can be protected Peterson, G. L., and D. W. Lime. 1979. People and their behavior: A challenge for recreation man- such objectives are identified, it would (or enhanced if needed). And we need agement. Journal of Forestry, 77: 343–346. seem difficult to implement rules and greater understanding of its relation- Vander Stoep, G. A., and J. W. Roggenbuck. regulations that confine visitors. With- ships to other dimensions of 1996. Is your park being “loved to death?”: Using communications and other indirect out clearly specified objectives and wilderness. So, as those two campers techniques to battle the park “love bug”. In standards of acceptable change, visi- contemplate the smoky evening and D. W. Lime, ed. Congestion and Crowding tors are being regulated to achieve only the intruding sounds of their peers, in the National Park System: Guidelines for ambiguously defined benefits. they will wonder whether it is best to Management and Research. MAES Misc. Pub. 86-1996. St. Paul, MN: Minnesota Ag- If wilderness experiences are to be be somewhat confined, and have fewer ricultural Experiment Station: 85–132. unconfined, what indicators would a people and intrusions, or less confined Merriam-Webster, Inc. 1985. Webster’s Revised manager monitor to ensure that this but more people and potentially more Unabridged Dictionary. Springfield, MA: dimension was not adversely affected? biophysical impacts. Author. Monitoring such social conditions is STEPHEN F. McCOOL is a professor, challenging and requires a thoughtful REFERENCES Dustin, D. L., and L. H. McAvoy. 1984. The limi- Department of Society and Conservation, analysis of what should be monitored, tation of the traffic light. Journal of Park and University of Montana, Missoula. E-mail: and when, where, and how frequently Recreation Administration, 2(3): 28–32. [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 17 STEWARDSHIP

Why Primitive Experiences in Wilderness?

BY BILL BORRIE

Introduction The opening sentence of the Wilderness Act is sometimes As defined in the Wilderness Act (PL 88-577), wilderness overlooked, and yet it offers a foundation for the consider- managers and policy makers must protect and provide “out- ation of primitiveness. The Statement of Policy begins: standing opportunities for solitude or a primitive and Sec. 2. (a) In order to assure that an increasing popu- unconfined experience.” The draft report on the “National lation, accompanied by expanding settlement and growing mechanization, does not occupy and Framework on Monitoring Selected Conditions Related to modify all areas within the United States and its Wilderness Character” inter- possessions, leaving no lands designated for preser- prets this as a call for “a vation and protection in their natural condition, it complex and subtle set of re- is hereby declared to be the policy of the Congress lationships between the land, to secure for the American people of present and its management, and the future generations the benefits of an enduring re- source of wilderness. meanings people associate with wilderness” (Landres Note the emphasis on an “increasing population,” on “expand- 2004, in this issue). How- ing settlement,” and on “growing mechanization.” This ever, the fundamental indicates a deliberate setting apart of wilderness from the forces question is what sort of so- of change that are associated with modern, technological soci- cial relationships are to be ety. It is a statement concerning not just ecological components validated and encouraged. In of a wilderness resource, but also very much the social and defining the nature of primi- cultural components. I believe it acknowledges people’s place tive experiences in in nature, and calls for a definition of appropriate practices, wilderness, we should be in- institutions, and attitudes toward nature. Wilderness is sym- formed by its intellectual bolic of restraint and reserve, suggesting the importance of Figure 1—Backpacker entering Buckskin Gulch in origins and underlying philo- lightening the burden of humanity on nature and upon the the Paria Canyon–Vermillion Cliffs Wilderness; sophical assumptions. managed by the Bureau of Land management (AZ experience of nature. Choosing to leave behind the trappings and UT). Photo by Peter Druschke. Perhaps, some conten- and conveniences of modern, technological society is a foster- tious strands of thought ing of primitive experiences. However, this observation should permeate the call for primitive experiences. Wilderness is a not be interpreted as a call to save nature from people. That sanctuary from modern, technological society. It is a place seemingly innocuous stance opens up problematic questions to reflect, to rejuvenate, and to rediscover ourselves free of: From whom are we protecting nature? For whom? And, from the demands and distractions of where we live and whose interests are being served in so doing? These are ques- work. Wilderness is a contrast and a reminder of how things tions of social justice, equity, power, and fairness and are not once were. Two particular eras and lifestyles of American easily dealt with herein. history are also valorized: (1) the simple, close-to-nature lifestyle of indigenous peoples—the “noble savages”; and Intellectual Origins (2) the virtuous character traits of early European settlers— The origin of the notion of primitiveness can partly be found the “virile pioneers” (Henberg 1994). in the early wilderness writings of Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo

18 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 Leopold, and Bob Marshall. I offer a few the more virile and primitive meadows and the forests still illustrative quotes that indicate the forms of outdoor recreation to grew and moldered and grew survive the receding economic again precisely as they had vaunted status of the “virile pioneer” and fact of pioneering. …There is done for undeterminable cen- the “noble savage.” Teddy Roosevelt, for little question that many of the turies. (Marshall 1998, pp. instance, suggested in 1897 that attributes most distinctive of 85–86). the untrodden American wil- America and Americans are derness resembles both in the impress of Wilderness and Putting aside the anthropological diffi- game and physical characters the life that accompanied it. If culties of Marshall’s views of the the forests, the mountains, and we have any such things as an presence and practices of American the steppes of the Old World American culture (and I think Indians on the North American conti- as it was at the beginning of our we have), its distinguishing nent, this is entirely indicative of Native own era. … At the time when marks are a certain vigorous we first became a nation, nine individualism combined with Americans as enlightened cultural role tenths of the territory now in- ability to organize, a certain models. Their environmental identities, cluded within the limits of the intellectual curiosity bent to attitudes, and behaviors are seen to be United States was wilderness. practical ends, a lack of sub- examples of appropriate cultural rela- It was during the stirring and servience to stiff social forms, tionships with nature. However, that troubled years immediately and an intolerance of drones, model of the “noble savage” or “green preceding the outbreak of the all of which are the distinctive Revolution that the most ad- characteristics of successful primitive” is problematic. venturous hunters, the van- pioneers [emphases added]. guard of the hardy army of (Leopold 1925, p. 401). Problematic Ideals pioneer settlers [emphasis Indeed, the notions of the “ecologically added], first crossed the Bob Marshall, in 1930, linked the Alleghanies, and roamed far noble savage,” and the “virile pioneer” are and wide through the lonely, experience of primitive environments both difficult. Both clearly make a dis- danger- haunted forests which with early Native Americans. He sug- tinction (as does the Wilderness Act) filled the No-Man’s land lying gested that the dominant attributes of between a genuine, traditional culture between the Tennessee and a wilderness area are as follows: and a spurious, modern culture (Vivanco the Ohio. (Roosevelt 1998, First, that it requires anyone 2003). Whereas the modern is seen as pp. 333–335) who exists in it to depend ex- shallow, superficial, and very utilitarian, clusively on his own effort for In addition to valorizing the pioneers survival; and second, that it the traditional is meaning-laden, harmo- and their rustic way of life, Roosevelt preserves nearly as possible nious, and spiritually engaged. It suggests also drops the names of Davy Crockett the primitive environment that particular human cultures are more (“honest, fearless”), Sam Houston [emphasis added]. This means virtuous than others, and that those cul- that all roads, power transpor- (“mighty,” “restless, reckless, and tures have insight and environmental tation and settlements are wisdom, or even a clearer view toward hardy”), Daniel Boone (“the arche- barred. But trails and tempo- type”), and Kit Carson (“daring”). They rary shelters, which were com- ecological sustainability. are members of a “distinctive class, mon long before the advent of The notion of the “green primitive” with a peculiar and important posi- the white race, are entirely or “ecologically noble savage” idolizes tion in American life” (p. 341). These permissible. When Columbus and sets apart indigenous cultures. In effected his immortal debarka- heroes “show the qualities of hardi- doing so, it can suggest purity, sim- tion, he touched upon a wil- plicity, and closer connection to nature hood, self-reliance, and resolution derness which embraced needed for effectively grappling with virtually a hemisphere. … due to their ability to avoid the “stain” his wild surroundings” (p. 348). “The land and all that it bore of modern, technological society. It Roosevelt celebrates not only the pio- they treated with consider- locates indigenous cultures outside the neering lifestyle, but also the character ation; not attempting to im- dominant track of history, separate prove it, they never desecrated traits that are fostered and reinforced from economic systems of trade and it.” Consequently, over billions exchange, and almost on the “other” in primitive, frontierlike experiences. of acres the aboriginal wander- Aldo Leopold similarly writes that ers still spun out their peripa- side of the human and nature divide public wilderness areas are es- tetic careers, the wild animals (not quite human). It suggests an un- sentially a means for allowing still browsed in unmolested changing culture that is undermined

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 19 Those worldviews may not be as po- The origin of the notion of primitiveness can partly litically appropriate and benign as when they were first suggested. be found in the early wilderness writings of REFERENCES Teddy Roosevelt, Aldo Leopold, and Bob Marshall. Henberg, M. 1994. Wilderness, myth and American character. Reprinted in J. B. Callicott and M. P. Nelson, eds. 1998. The by the adoption of technology and by and harmonious relationships to nature? Great New Wilderness Debate. Athens: engagement (however cautious) with Is the pioneering lifestyle valorizing dis- University of Georgia Press, 500–551. Leopold, A. 1925. Wilderness as a form of land politics, legal negotiation, and eco- tant landscapes, open horizons, and use. Journal of Land and Policy Utility Eco- nomic success (Vivanco 2003). sublime mountain landscapes to the nomics, 1, 398–404. The pioneering lifestyle, though inconsiderability of nearby, less iconic Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilderness. Reprinted in J. B. Callicott and M. P. Nelson, more myth than reality in its time, landscapes? Although rightfully cel- eds. 1998. The Great New Wilderness Debate. might also be difficult to argue for as ebrating distant landscapes, are we Athens: University of Georgia Press, 85–96. an ideal. It could be seen as endorsing also ignoring the less than admirable Roosevelt, T. 1897. The American wilderness: a hunting and gathering, mobile ethos state of our relationship to nearby Wilderness hunters and wilderness game. Reprinted in T. Roosevelt (1998). Hunting in clear contrast to an agrarian vision nature? When cast in light of these Trips of a Ranchman and the Wilderness (secure title, permanent habitation, questions, the celebration of a pioneer- Hunter. New York: Modern Library, 315–782. and “improvement” of land). I won- ing lifestyle becomes troublesome. Vivanco, L. A., 2003. Conservation and Culture, der if the attraction of the pioneer Genuine and Spurious. In B.A. Minteer and R. E. Manning, eds. Reconstructing Conser- model is its rejection of urban servi- Conclusion vation: Finding Common Ground. Washington, tude and/or rural peasantry. Although The search for indicators for the wil- DC: Island Press, 57–73. not exactly celebrating poverty, is the derness value of primitive experiences attraction of the pioneer lifestyle a re- is a consideration of appropriate so- BILL BORRIE is an associate professor in the College of Forestry and Conservation, action to the stalled economic status cial and cultural relations with nature. University of Montana, Missoula, MT of rural inhabitants, and the perceived In doing so, we need to be wary of the 59812-0576, USA. Email: lack of ability to develop sustainable worldviews we would be endorsing. [email protected].

From LANDRES on page 11

we should be monitoring in this “out- Borrie (The University of Montana), Golden, CO: Fulcrum Publishing. standing opportunities” quality of David Cole (Aldo Leopold Wilderness McCloskey, M. 1999. Changing views of what the wilderness system is all about. Denver wilderness, and the differences be- Research Institute), Denis Davis (Na- University Law Review, 76: 369–381. tween monitoring for opportunities tional Park Service), Chad Dawson Rohlf, D., and D. L. Honnold. 1988. Managing versus experiences. (SUNY College of Environmental Sci- the balance of nature: The legal framework of wilderness management. Ecology Law ence and Forestry), Chad Dear (The Quarterly 15: 249–279. Acknowledgments University of Montana), Nicholas Scott, D. W. 2002. “Untrammeled,” “wilderness Workshop cochairs Peter Landres, Funda (South African National Parks, character,” and the challenges of wilderness South Africa), Troy Hall (University preservation. Wild Earth, 11(3/4): 72–79. Steve McCool (The University of U.S. Congress. 1983. U.S. House Report 98– Montana), and Joe Roggenbuck (Vir- of Idaho), Steve Henry (U.S. Fish and 40 from the Committee on Interior and Insular ginia Polytechnic Institute) sincerely Wildlife Service), Linda Merigliano Affairs, March 18: 43. thank all of the participants for their (USDA Forest Service), and Susan passion, thoughtfulness, and willing- Sater (USDA Forest Service). PETER LANDRES is a research ecologist with the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research ness to work toward the goals (and REFERENCES Station, Rocky Mountain Research Station, abide by the constraints) of this work- Hendee, J. C., and C. P. Dawson. 2002. Wil- USDA Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089, shop. Participants were Chris Barns derness Management: Stewardship and Missoula, MT 59807, USA. E-mail: (Bureau of Land Management), Bill Protection of Resources and Values (3rd ed.). [email protected].

20 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 STEWARDSHIP

Managing for Primitive Recreation in Wilderness

BY JOSEPH W. ROGGENBUCK

The Issue Leopold (1925), at least in his early writings, saw the pri- The Wilderness Act of 1964 (P.L. 88-577) specifically man- mary value of wilderness as maintaining and nurturing the dates that lands designated as wilderness shall provide essential American character, a character marked by “a cer- outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and tain vigorous individualism … a lack of subservience to stiff unconfined type of recreation. Yet, as we celebrate the 40th social forms, and an intolerance of drones, all of which are anniversary of the National Wilderness Preservation Sys- the distinctive characteristics of successful pioneers.” For a tem, very little thought, discussion, and research have been young Leopold, wilderness areas were ideal places to allow devoted to defining what is meant by primitive recreation the more virile and primitive forms of outdoor recreation to in wilderness, the values of the primitive in the American survive the receding economic fact of pioneering. Play at pio- mind, its importance to wilderness recreational visitors, the neering was an improvement over the stern realities of degree to which this value is threatened, and to manage- pioneering, because pioneer play could be done under the ment systems that might facilitate or reduce outstanding ethical code of a sportsman. Given this, Leopold defined opportunities for primitive experiences in wilderness. As primitive recreation as knowing there were blank spots on an example of the problem, many managers in well-inten- the map, having the opportunity and the skill to lead pack tioned efforts to protect the aesthetic and natural qualities trains of horses away from roads and summer hotels and to of wilderness are discouraging the use of campfires for cook- tie diamond hitches, and having the opportunity and skill to ing in wilderness and even requiring the use of a late bag game and catch fish away from roads and the Model T 20th-century mechanical gadget, the backpack stove. Where Ford and without a lot of gadgets and gimmicks. is the thoughtful discussion on what is lost and what is Marshall (1930) added greater specificity to Leopold’s gained as we require late 20th-century technology running statement of the values of primitive experiences in wilder- on exotic nonrenewable fuels in wilderness? ness. For Marshall, wilderness denoted a region with no permanent inhabitants, pos- sessed no possibility of conveyance by mechanical Writings of the Wilderness Fathers means and is sufficiently spacious that a person cross- The fathers of the movement to protect wilderness in ing it must have the experience of sleeping out. The America wrote much and clearly about the meaning and dominant attributes of such an area are: first, that it requires any one who exists in it to depend exclusively values of the primitive in the American mind. Thoreau went on his own effort for survival; and second, that it pre- to the woods “to live deliberately, to front only the essential serves as nearly as possible the primitive environment. facts of life, … to live deep and suck out all the marrow of This means all roads, power transportation and settle- life, to live so sturdily and Spartan-like as to put to rout all ments are barred. But trails and temporary shelters, that was not life … lest when I come to die, discover that I which were common long before the advent of the have not lived” (Torry and Allen 1949). For us here, the white race, are entirely permissible (p. 141). essential path of Thoreau to the wild and to finding truth Thus, like Leopold, Marshall valued primitive recreation in wil- was to reduce the clutter and the clamor, to simplify, to live derness for the individuality and skill it fostered (see Figure 1). life deliberately, and to live in a Spartan-like manner (i.e., But in addition, Marshall valued self-sufficiency. For Marshall, to live in a primitive way). the wilderness trip was not mediated; there was no guide.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 21 line might be the arrival of Columbus on the American continent. But most of us with our Kevlar canoes, nylon tents, and polypropylene vests are not quite so primitive. Benefits of Primitive Recreation in Wilderness Wilderness managers, as they select indicators, standards, and management strategies to facilitate primitive experi- ences, should consider the probable benefits of such experiences. The wil- derness philosophers and more recent empirical research (e.g., Talbot and Figure 1—Man on horseback with pack trail in western U.S. wilderness. Photo courtesy of U.S. Forest Service. Kaplan 1986), suggested the following direct and immediate positive effects: learn woodsman/pioneer outdoor we have been doing the longest, Olson, the bard of the Boundary skills, nostalgia or connection with pio- Waters, perhaps more than any other and the hunger men feel for the wilds and a roving life is natural neers and early American explorers, wilderness writer, developed a philo- evidence of the need of repeating learn skills of exploration and travel in sophical foundation for the value of a plan of existence that for un- wild places, and learn nature’s processes primitive experiences. In so doing, he told centuries was common prac- and ecology. Likely second-order or provided insight into what is a primi- tice. It is still in our blood (p. 397). indirect positive effects include becom- tive experience and how it unfolds in In this and other writing, Olson (1945) ing hardy in body and mind, wilderness. As a guide in the Bound- suggested that primitive recreation is not self-reliant, self-confident, becoming a ary Waters, Olson (1938) noted primarily meditation and contemplation creature of the Wild or an ecological how quickly a man sheds the citizen, developing respect for nature, habiliments of civilization and in idyllic settings. It instead unfolds over how soon he feels at home in the some time, typically some days. It is fos- and increasing humility and joy. wilds. Before many days have tered by battling the raw elements of passed, he feels that the life he nature. Primitive experiences slowly Importance of has been living was merely an unfold during a life on the move, and Primitive Experiences interruption in a long wilderness they prototypically involve woodsmoke. for Current Visitors existence and that now again he is back at the real business of liv- Thus far this essay has taken a histori- ing. And when we think of the Defining Primitive cal perspective on the values of comparatively short time that we Experiences in Wilderness primitiveness. Do today’s wilderness have been living and working as Given the writings of the wilderness fa- visitors, whose perceptions of nature we do now, when we recall that thers, a wilderness experience is may be most influenced by the TV, the many of us are hardly a genera- primitive to the extent to which it rep- web, the mall, and Disney (Roggenbuck tion removed from the soil, and a scant few thousand years ago resents living/eating/sleeping/traveling/ 2000), seek and receive primitive ex- our ancestors roamed and hunted playing in a simple, unguided, multiday, periences in wilderness? Shafer (1993) the fastnesses of Europe, it is not nonmotorized, nonmechanized, non- and Shafer and Hammitt (1995) mea- strange that the smell of electronic, and nonfacilitated way. sured the importance of five different woodsmoke and the lure of the Prototypically, primitive experiences rep- experience dimensions of Okefenokee primitive is with us yet. Racial resent immediate and deep contact with and Cohutta Wilderness visitors, and memory is a tenacious thing, and for some it is always easy to slip raw nature without the clutter and aid found the primitive dimension to be back into the deep grooves of the of modern conveniences. Defining what second in importance to natural, and past. What we feel most deeply is modern is of course a value judgment. more important than solitude, uncon- are those things which as a race Marshall suggested that the demarcation fined, and remote. Borrie and

22 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 Roggenbuck (2001) measured the ex- need for and a capability of last-minute contact with the slowly unfolding tent to which Okefenokee Wilderness planning. Visits to wilderness are be- rhythms of nature). visitors experienced “simple living” and coming shorter and closer to home. The explosion in technology with “living like a pioneer” during their stay. Thus, an increasingly large percentage respect to wilderness use and enjoy- Primitive living scores were quite low of all wilderness visits are for a day or ment is perhaps the most pervasive among respondents, but they increased less. This reduces the likelihood of at- and complex of all changes regard- progressively across time in wilderness. taining primitive experiences. ing wilderness in the 21st century. Watson and Roggenbuck (1998) found Because more and more Americans This is because technology not only that challenge/primitive/way-finding likely learn of nature through TV, the changes wilderness, inside and out, was one of four important dimensions web, the mall, and Disney, more and but it also changes us (Borrie 2000). of the wilderness experience at Juniper more wilderness visitors will likely Communication and marketing tech- Prairie Wilderness in Florida. expect the wilderness to be safe, sani- nology is changing our image of what tized, clean, comfortable, and exciting. wilderness is, what it can be, and Threats to Primitive But nature, especially wild nature, is what it should be. The media can Conditions in Wilderness none of these things. To buffer the convince us that wilderness is what This analysis suggests the following messiness, unpredictability and unre- it is not, or at least convince us that types of wilderness conditions are con- sponsiveness, and slow rhythms of wilderness is different from the intent ducive to primitive experiences: blank nature, wilderness visitors will turn to of wilderness managers and wilder- spots on the map, long stays, no or outfitters, guides, and travel agents to ness legislation. few basic facilities, simple trails/path- mediate their experiences in wilder- Technology has produced lots of ways, no motorized travel, no ness. This change almost surely innovations to increase the comfort mechanical conveniences, no elec- reduces contact with raw nature, and and safety of the wilderness encoun- tronic devices, unfacilitated or primitive experiences are correspond- ter. This permits more people to go nonmediated experiences, and ingly reduced. more deeply into wilderness at more simple gear for survival, not comfort. Leopold (1949) wondered about dangerous times and places. But with Hendee and Dawson (2001) recently the value of forty freedoms without a the use of increased technology, people listed 17 threats to wilderness re- blank spot on the map. Today with the can get soft and lazy, they can lose sources and values, five of which explosion of satellite mapping, remote skills and self-sufficiency, and they can involved primitive experiences: ex- sensing, and instant two-way commu- develop a false sense of security. With cessive administrative access, facilities, nication on the Internet, are we losing modern conveniences, going to the and intrusive management; advanced the values of freedom, the freedom to wilderness can become a lark, simply technology; trespass and legal use of explore, and the freedom to escape a fun diversion. People may lose the motorized and mechanical equipment; (Freimund and Borrie 1997)? Today desire to experience nature on its own aircraft noise from aircraft overflights, we can click onto the Internet and find terms, and may lose humility and re- and urbanization encroaching on the out at any moment the availability of spect for nature. In effect, they may wilderness boundaries. The most in- permits at each put-in point into the lose the experience of the primitive. sidious of these threats arising from Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilder- Technological stuff that has altered visitor use might be categorized as aris- ness; we can peruse suggested travel primitive recreation in wilderness ing from changes in the structure of routes; we can learn about character- might be classified as four types: those leisure time in America (which in turn istics of individual campsites; we can that allow people to live and play com- is shaped by changes in the work- hear the call of the loons; and we can fortably, create ease of travel, permit place), changes in the views of nature select an outfitter to help us find the contact with the outside, and provide in America, the revolution in informa- loons, the moose, and the big fish. To entertainment (Sawyer 2002). All, ex- tion transfer, and the recent explosion be sure, much good is coming of this cept entertainment, can increase in technology, especially electronic shift. But for certain, some values are perceived safety and control. For ob- technology. being lost, and one of these is the ex- vious reasons such technological In recent decades, leisure has be- perience of the primitive (i.e., the advances are seen as beneficial, but if come available in smaller and smaller surprise of encounters with the un- pushed too far they can reduce or blocks of time, and there is increasing known and the wisdom of direct eliminate feelings of the primitive.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 23 Leisure Research, 33(2): 202–228. Primitive experiences represent immediate and Freimund, W. and B. Borrie. 1997. Wilderness in the 21st Century: Are There Technical So- lutions to Technical Problems? International deep contact with raw nature without the clutter Journal of Wilderness, 3 (4): 21–23. Hendee, J. C. and C. P. Dawson. 2001. Stew- and aid of modern conveniences. ardship to address the threats to wilderness resources and values. International Journal of Wilderness, 7(3): 4–9. Possible Indicators • Percent of wilderness area without Leopold, A. 1925. Wilderness as a form of land of Opportunities for available electronic information use. The Journal of Land and Public Utility about its facilities and conditions Economics, 1(4): 398–404. Primitive Experiences 4. Multiday Visits ———. 1949. A Sand County Almanac and Wilderness managers must consider Sketches Here and There. New York: Ox- • Percent of visitors who stay more ford University Press. three additional practical consider- than one day per visit Marshall, R. 1930. The problem of the wilder- ations when they select indicators of •Average length of stay per visit ness. The Scientific Monthly, 30: 141–148. primitive experiences. First, wilder- 5. Unguided or Unmediated Visits Olson, S. 1938. Why wilderness? American Forests, 44: 395–430. ness managers are mandated to Percent of visitors whose visit is ———. 1945. Flying in. Sports Afield 114. In D. provide opportunities for primitive or is not outfitted or guided Backes, ed. 2001. The Meaning of Wilderness, experiences. Managers and nature provide 6. Modern Technology—Motorized Use Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press. opportunities; recreational visitors create Roggenbuck, J. W. 2000. Meanings of wilder- • Miles/percent of trail or acres of ness experiences in the 21st century. Inter- experiences. Second, the recreationists or area open to commercial or private national Journal of Wilderness, 6(2): 14–17. the conditions of the environment outside motorized use Sawyer, N. 2002. New technology and the fu- the wilderness often affect opportunities • Amount of administrative motor- ture of the wilderness experience. Interna- for primitive experiences as much as what tional Journal of Wilderness, 8(2): 38–41. ized use (in hours per year) Shafer, C. S. 1993. The relationships among happens inside the wilderness. Third, be- 7. Modern Technology—Mechanical Use wilderness experience dimensions, condi- cause recreationists construct their own • Regulations requiring/forbidding tions of concern, and coping behaviors: experiences, managers should be cautious use of backpack stoves Applying descriptions of designated wilder- ness. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, about attempting to engineer experiences • Percent of visitors who use/don’t Clemson University, Clemson, S. C. too much. The oath taken by medical doc- use backpack stoves Shafer, C. S. and W. E. Hammitt. 1995. Con- tors “to do no harm” seems to apply equally • Percent of meals cooked over fire/ gruency among experience dimensions, con- well here. With these cautionary notes, this dition indicators, and coping behaviors in cooked over a backpack stove wilderness. Leisure Sciences, 17: 263–279. article concludes with examples of pos- 8. Modern Conveniences—Electronic Talbot, J. F. and S. Kaplan. 1986. Perspectives sible indicators of opportunities for • Number of cell phone towers visible on wilderness: Re-examining the value of primitive experiences in wilderness: from the wilderness extended wilderness experiences. Journal of 1. Lack of Facilities Environmental Psychology, 6: 177–188. • Regulations forbidding/permitting Torry, B., and F. E. Allen, eds. 1949. The Journal • Number of structures for aid and cell phones of Henry David Thoreau. 14 vols. Walden comfort of visitors per acre in wil- • Regulations forbidding/permitting edition. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin. derness global positioning systems/units in Watson, A. E., and J. W. Roggenbuck. 1998. Selecting human experience indicators for • Number of administrative struc- wilderness wilderness: Different approaches provide tures per acre in wilderness different results. In D. L. Kulhavy and M. H. 2. Trail Miles and Conditions Legg, eds. Wilderness and Natural Areas REFERENCES in Eastern North America: Research, Man- • Number of miles of trail per acre Borrie, W. T. 2000. Impacts of technology on agement and Planning. Nacogdoches, TX: the meaning of wilderness. In A. E. Watson, in wilderness Stephen F. Austin State University, Arthur G. H. Aplet, and J. C. Hendee, comps. Per- • Percentage of miles of trail in vari- Temple College of Forestry, Center of Ap- sonal, Societal, and Ecological Values of plied Studies: 264–269. ous maintenance condition classes Wilderness: Sixth World Wilderness Con- in wilderness gress Proceedings on Research, Manage- 3. Blank Spot on the Map ment, and Allocation, Vol. II, USDA Forest JOE ROGGENBUCK is a professor of natural resources recreation, Department of • Percent of wilderness area more Service Proceedings RMRS-P-14: 87–88. Borrie, W. T., and J. W. Roggenbuck. 2001. The Forestry, Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA than one mile away from human- dynamic, emergent, and multi-phasic nature 24061, USA. Telephone: 540-231-7418. made trails and structures of on-site wilderness experiences. Journal of E-mail: [email protected].

24 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 STEWARDSHIP

Wilderness Experiences

What Should We Be Managing For?

DAVID N. COLE

he U.S. Wilderness Act gives wilderness managers subject to managerial control but many are not. Biophysical a challenging stewardship responsibility: to provide attributes that manager can control include how much recre- T and/or protect opportunities for certain types of ation impact is present and whether there are bridges over human experiences. The act states that wilderness “shall be rivers. Biophysical attributes managers cannot control include administered for the use and enjoyment of the American scenery, weather, and bugs. The social setting is more subject people in such manner as will leave them unimpaired for to managerial control and includes such attributes as amount future use and enjoyment as wilderness.” The significant and type of use. However, even more important than amount clause that they are to be enjoyed “as wilderness” is further or type of use can be the behavior of other visitors, something defined under the definitional characteristics of wilderness. managers have less control over. Finally, managers have sub- Here wilderness is defined, in part, as an area that “has stantial influence over managerial attributes such as the degree outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and of restriction of free, unconfined, and spontaneous behavior. unconfined type of recreation.” This is all the guidance the Visitor experience is a concept that is frequently articu- Act provides regarding the responsibilities of wilderness lated but seldom defined. Here I use the term to refer, as managers regarding recreational experiences in wilderness. McIntyre (1998) does, to what visitors do in wilderness, what Since their primary responsibility is to preserve wilderness they focus on and think about, and how they feel while they character, managers need clear objectives regarding human ex- are there. What visitors experience is influenced by the set- periences in wilderness, as well as an understanding of how ting conditions that the visitor encounters. However, as Figure well those objectives are being attained. Several of the other 1 suggests, the experience is also substantially influenced by articles in this issue provide perspective on concepts of solitude, how each person appraises and responds to the conditions primitive recreation, and unconfined recreation. My concern is that are encountered. Different people encountering similar whether stewardship objectives should relate most directly to biophysical, social, and managerial conditions often have very the kinds of experiences people are having in wilderness, their different experiences. This variation ultimately stems from evaluations of those experiences, or their opportunities for cer- tain kinds of experiences. The answer to this question is relevant to how we should monitor and assess wilderness character, as well as the indicators we might adopt in a Limits of Acceptable Change or similar type of wilderness management plan.

Settings, Experiences, and Evaluations To address this question, it is helpful to consider a model that illustrates relationships among four possible assessment do- mains: settings, experiences, evaluations of experiences, and evaluations of setting attributes (see Figure 1). The setting de- scribes the conditions that visitors experience on a wilderness Figure 1—A conceptual model of the relationships between setting attributes, the personal trip. Commonly, attributes of the setting are classified as being characteristics of visitors, their experiences, and their evaluation of those experiences and of biophysical, social, or managerial. Some of these attributes are setting attributes.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 25 Visitors are more likely to negatively evaluate specific setting attributes than their entire experience. Survey results often indicate that the number of people encountered detracted some- what from experience quality or that signage was considered a problem. However, the large number of attributes that might be evaluated and lack of consensus on their relative importance makes this type of information difficult to interpret. Importance-performance measures have been developed to deal with this complexity, but the shortcom- ings of this approach include the tendency (1) to aggregate measures across users to develop evaluations of “the average user” and (2) to treat the wilderness experience as a collection of Figure 2—Hiker ascending an alpine trail in the Mount Rainier Wilderness; managed by the National Park Service (WA). Photo by Chad Dawson. individual attributes rather than as a whole that is more than the sum of its parts (Borrie and Birzell 2001). differences in personal characteristics, Basis for Assessment The Wilderness Act does not direct such as norms and expectations. One Clearly, information about each of these managers to provide high quality expe- person may be so motivated by a need four domains has value and can con- riences. It directs them to provide for some quiet time that a high degree tribute to improved wilderness opportunities for wilderness to be enjoyed of solitude is experienced despite stewardship. However, which of the four as wilderness. This suggests that a better crowds of people all around. Another provides the most meaningful basis for criterion than evaluations of experience similarly motivated person, less toler- assessing wilderness character or for in- quality would be the type of experience ant of crowds, may experience dicators within a planning process such that people have in wilderness. There resentment and stress while attempt- as Limits of Acceptable Change? If the are two problems with this approach. ing to get away from crowds to find a goal of wilderness management is to The first problem—which conceivably suitably quiet interlude. Finally, some- provide high quality experiences, it could be overcome—is that the nature one else out for exercise and social would seem that experience evaluations of experience has seldom been studied interaction might never slow down or would be most important. The problem and is poorly understood. We do not experience tranquility the entire time— is that experience evaluations are almost have more than a rudimentary vocabu- and yet be perfectly satisfied. invariably positive regardless of the con- lary for describing experiences in terms Visitors also appraise and respond ditions that were encountered or what that might be arrayed from more to less to what they actually experience in was experienced. Substantial research desirable for wilderness. Recently, inter- wilderness, creating longer-term has been conducted showing that vari- est in describing what visitors experience meanings and outcomes from the wil- ables such as the number of other groups in wilderness has increased (e.g., Borrie derness visit. Survey researchers encountered have relatively little influ- and Roggenbuck 2001). This work commonly attempt to evaluate over- ence on the quality of people’s should ultimately provide new insights all experience quality by asking visitors experiences (Manning 1999; Stewart related to effective stewardship of wil- how satisfied they were with their ex- and Cole 2001). The experience-qual- derness regarding visitor experiences. perience. Alternatively, visitors can be ity evaluations of most people are likely The other problem with using expe- asked for evaluations of specific set- to be roughly equivalent whether a wil- rience as a primary assessment domain ting attributes, from the adequacy of derness provides a wild experience or is the fact that it is largely determined parking to how crowded they felt. one more reminiscent of Disneyland. by factors that are not subject to mana-

26 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 gerial control. Some people come to increase as we learn more about the wilderness looking for solitude, while nature of human experience in wilder- others do not. If we use a variable such ness and how that experience varies as solitude achievement for assessment with setting attributes. In addition, purposes, wilderness character would visitor evaluations and opinions about vary with the desire of wilderness visi- appropriate setting attributes, along tors for solitude—regardless of what was with those of other stakeholders, need happening to wilderness conditions. to be considered when setting man- Solitude achievement could increase agement objectives. even as wildernesses became more crowded, if visitors became more ca- REFERENCES pable of finding tranquillity among other Borrie, W. T., and R. M. Birzell. 2001. Ap- proaches to measuring quality of the wilder- people. Alternatively, solitude achieve- ness experience. In W. A. Freimund and D. ment could decrease as more people N. Cole, comps. Visitor Use Density and come to wilderness for purposes other Wilderness Experience: Proceedings. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Rocky than to find solitude. Mountain Research Station, Proceedings Despite the tendency to refer to the RMRS-P-20: 29–38. manager’s job as protecting the qual- Borrie, W. T., and J. W. Roggenbuck. 2001. Figure 3—Crown Lake and Slide Mountain in the ity of wilderness experiences or the The dynamic, emergent, and multi-pha- Hoover Wilderness; managed by the U.S. Forest sic nature of on-site wilderness experi- Service (CA). Photo by Peter Druschke. importance of understanding what ences. Journal of Leisure Research, 33: visitors are actually experiencing, both 202–228. Stewart, W. P., and D. N. Cole. 2001. Number experiences and evaluations are prob- Manning, R. E. 1999. Studies in Outdoor Rec- of encounters and experience quality in lematic as indicators of either reation: Search and Research for Satisfac- Grand Canyon backcountry: Consistently tion, (2nd ed.). Corvallis: Oregon State negative and weak relationships. Journal of wilderness character or of manage- University Press. Leisure Research, 33: 106–120. ment success. The alternative is to base McIntyre, N. 1998. Person and environment transactions during brief wilderness trips: an indicators on setting attributes that are DAVID N. COLE is a research biologist with exploration. In A. E. Watson, G. H. Aplet, subject to managerial control. Preserv- the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research and J. C. Hendee, comps. Personal, Soci- ing these attributes—such as low-use etal, and Ecological Values of Wilderness, Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, density, few encounters, rough trails, Vol. 1. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Service, Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, few facilities—does not guarantee a Rocky Mountain Research Station, Proceed- MT 59807, USA. Telephone: 406-542- ings RMRS-P-4: 79–84. 4199. E-mail: [email protected]. particular kind of experience. Rather, it preserves outstanding opportunities (to From DIGEST on page 47 use the phrase from the Wilderness Act) for certain types of experiences, Proposed New Idaho that stay on designated routes; just should visitors seek those experiences. Wilderness Area Would 40,000 acres (16,194 hectares) would be off-limits to ranching. Senator Mike Conclusions Allow Motorized Access Crapo, who helped shepherd the nego- Monitoring wilderness character and An unlikely coalition of ranchers, off- tiations, said the agreement “should set managers’ success in meeting steward- road vehicle enthusiasts, politicians, and a standard for collaborative decision- ship objectives are important. environmental groups has, after years of making”; he is “very optimistic” that it Monitoring of setting attributes that discussion and negotiation, united to will pass through Congress. In 2000, the are subject to managerial control and propose the first new federal wilderness Clinton administration proposed setting related to desired wilderness experi- area in Idaho in more than 20 years. The aside a much larger 2.4 million acres (1 ences seems to provide a better basis official wilderness designation would million hectares) of southwest Idaho as for assessment than measures of the give protection from almost all devel- a national monument, which would wilderness experience itself or of visi- opment to 511,000 acres (206,882 have placed it under much tighter re- tors’ evaluations of the experience. hectares) of land in and around the strictions, but, said Idaho Rivers United However, our ability to select good Owyhee-Bruneau Canyonlands. Access Director Bill Sedivy, “That was a differ- indicators of the setting will clearly would be ensured for off-road vehicles ent time, a different place.”

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 27 STEWARDSHIP

Monitoring Wilderness Conditions in the Green Mountain National Forest

BY KEN NORDEN

ix wilderness areas in the Green Mountain National Forest (GMNF) range in size from 3,738 acres (1,514 S ha) in the Bristol Cliffs area to 21,480 acres (8,697 ha) in the Breadloaf area (see Figure 1). These six wilder- ness areas comprise 15% of the GMNF and are managed under the GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan and individual wilderness plans. Additionally, a U.S. Forest Ser- vice Ten Year Wilderness Challenge has begun that requires six out of 10 primary input elements to be met in each wilderness to achieve the management standard of that chal- Figure 1—The wilderness areas of the GMNF are characteristic of the rolling lenge. The 10 elements of the challenge are: ensuring a fire topography and natural forested landscapes of the Green Mountains. Photo by Ken management plan with a full range of response options; Norden. implementing invasive plant control; establishing air qual- ity baseline; implementing visitor education plan; protecting ditions; fulfilling information needs; and providing baseline conditions for visitor solitude; completing recreation site workforce. Several of these elements involve monitoring inventory; providing outfitter and guide operation plans; conditions. setting adequate standards to prevent degradation of con- Monitoring is conducted periodically to measure the social, biological, and managerial conditions over time. The reasons for monitoring conditions include (1) measuring changes and impacts on conditions over time, (2) ensuring that wilderness is managed in accordance with the Wilder- ness Act and related legislations, and (3) meeting the Ten Year Wilderness Challenge. The GMNF field level monitoring generally falls into two categories: (1) visitor use and related impacts (see Figure 2), and (2) biological and resource conditions. The eight types of field monitoring and examples of information ob- tained are shown in Table 1. Standards and guidelines are included in the GMNF Land and Resource Management Plan and wilderness plans to help implement management actions. The wilderness plans refer to the Limits of Acceptable Change planning process Article author Ken Norden. as a means of setting standards for impacts caused by visi-

28 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 Table 1—Field monitoring of conditions in the six wilderness areas of the GMNF

Type of Field Monitoring Examples of Information Visitor Use and Impacts Trail self-registrations Day vs. overnight users, group size, and residence area Trail counters Visitor spatial and temporal distribution of use Trail condition inventory Tread erosion, blowdown on trail Campsite condition inventory Vegetation and soil loss, compaction Field document sheets Visitor contacts, trail work needed Figure 2—Visitor impacts accumulate around attractive features like lean-tos in wilderness. Photo by Ken Norden. Biological and Resource Conditions Invasive species Aquatic and terrestrial plan introduction Air quality Acid deposition, haze and ozone Boundary checks Boundary marker and sign inventory and regulation postings tor use. The ongoing planning uses the ure 3). Changes in visibility deter- preliminary monitoring results, and mined by measurements of air quality subsequent monitoring results will be range of view help compile informa- used to measure compliance with the tion on impacts from downwind standards being developed. pollution sources. Although staff and funding are lim- This is the beginning of what will be ited, we have begun to meet the a long-term monitoring effort to ensure Figure 3—Boundary signs on the Lye Brook Wilderness, GMNF. elements that require monitoring. For wilderness qualities for present and fu- Photo by Ken Norden. example, noxious and invasive plants ture generations. The decision was made like Japanese barberry are being hand to start these monitoring processes on pulled in these relatively small wilder- the wilderness areas of the GMNF un- KEN NORDEN is the wilderness ranger on the Middlebury Ranger District for the ness areas. Studies of visitor impacts der the assumption that these modest Green Mountain National Forest. He can on trails and campsites are being mea- beginnings were a positive step toward be contacted at 1007 Route 7 South, sured as wilderness visitor education the information database needed to Middlebury, VT 05753, USA. E-mail: programs are implemented (see Fig- steward these valued resources. [email protected].

From DAWSON on page 14

Manning, Robert E. 1985. Crowding norms in negative and weak relationships. Journal of provide different results. In D. L. Kulhavy, backcountry settings: A review and synthesis. Leisure Research, 33(1): 106–120. and M. Legg, eds. Wilderness and Natural Journal of Leisure Research, 17(2): 75–89. U.S. Public Law 88-577. 1964. The Wilderness Act. Areas in Eastern North America: Research, ———. 1999. Studies in outdoor recreation: Watson, Alan E. 1995. Opportunities for solitude in Management and Planning. Nacogdoches, Search and research for satisfaction (2nd the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. TX: Stephen Austin State University, Arthur ed.). Corvallis: Oregon State University. Journal of Applied Forestry, 12(1): 12–18. Temple College of Forestry, Center for Ap- Patterson, M., and W. E. Hammitt. 1990. Watson, Alan E., R. Cronin, and N. A. plied Studies: 264–269. Backcountry encounter norms, actual re- Christensen. 1998. Monitoring Inter-group ported encounters, and their relationship to encounters in wilderness. Res. Paper RMRS- wilderness solitude. Journal of Leisure Re- RP-14. Fort Collins, CO: USDA Forest Ser- CHAD P. DAWSON is a professor at the search, 22(3): 259–275. vice, Rocky Mountain Research Station. State University of New York, College of Stewart, W. P., and C. N. Cole. 2001. Number Watson, Alan E., and Joseph W. Roggenbuck. Environmental Science and Forestry, of encounters and experience quality in 1995. Selecting human experience indica- Syracuse, and the managing editor of IJW. Grand Canyon backcountry: Consistently tors for wilderness: Different approaches E-mail: [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 29 STEWARDSHIP

Renewing Wilderness and Wild and Scenic River Stewardship in the U. S. Forest Service

BY MARY WAGNER

Wilderness is special. That’s the message we at the U. S. Forest Service (USFS) wanted to send to the international community of wilderness conservationists, through the IJW, on the 40th anniversary of the 1964 Wilderness Act. Furthermore, because wilderness is special, we decided to reorganize the Forest Service and name our first national director of wilderness; Mary Wagner will lead our wilderness program. Mary has extensive wilderness experience, both personal and professional, and a deep commitment to the wilderness resource. Under her leadership, I am confident that we will be able to deepen the appreciation that Americans feel for the special value of their wilderness, and also communicate to our international colleagues that we look forward to increased collaboration as we collectively protect and sustain the world’s wild areas. —Dale Bosworth, Chief, U. S. Forest Service

Introduction contains almost 106 million acres (14.6 million ha) in 662 The Wilderness Act—40 years old in 2004—has given the areas. The USFS manages one-third of the total. Wilder- American public a tremendous resource and legacy. It seems ness makes up about 18% of the National Forest System, fitting that the Forest Service chose this year to create a new some 35 million acres. senior position—director of wilderness and wild and scenic In addition, we administer roughly 48% of the rivers in rivers—and it is a tremendous honor and responsibility for the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System (NWSRS). Riv- me to be the first such director. It’s an honor because the ers are a valued part of our nation’s life and culture, and the people in the Forest Service and the nongovernmental orga- Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 builds an American nizations that have advocated for such a position have been legacy of protected rivers, containing some of the premier true leaders in wilderness stewardship. I have admired them river reaches within the nation. The act provides future for their personal contributions and commitment. It’s a re- generations with free-flowing rivers possessing outstand- sponsibility because the National Wilderness Preservation ing natural and cultural values. Intended to balance demand System—although providing enormous benefits and values— for power and irrigation with the desire to protect some of also faces threats that need to be addressed to ensure an our most precious rivers, the act forms a cornerstone of enduring resource of wilderness. our country’s conservation agenda. Currently numbering 163 rivers (11,303 miles), the The Legacy of the Wilderness Act NWSRS is administered by four federal agencies Bureau of and the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act Land Management (BLM), National Park Service (NPS), Since the early days of Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, Arthur USFS and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and, Carhart, and other wilderness visionaries, the Forest Ser- for 17 rivers, by states. The Forest Service administers 100 vice has played a leadership role in wilderness stewardship. rivers and 4,346 miles, more rivers and miles than any other Long before the Wilderness Act, we protected wilderness WSR-administering agency. Management of these desig- values on millions of acres of public land. Today, the NWPS nated rivers and protecting the eligibility of the nearly 700

30 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 study rivers identified to date contrib- • enhance our ability to meet our utes directly to the Forest Service regulatory and stewardship respon- Strategic Plan and its goals of ecosys- sibilities for wild and scenic rivers; tem health, multiple benefits to • enhance our capacity for leadership people, scientific and technical assis- within the National Wilderness tance, and effective public service. Preservation System and within the global movement for protected area Management of the System management; The NPS, BLM and the USFWS also share • strengthen our relationships with in the responsibility to manage the NWPS nongovernmental and partner or- and the NWSRS. This shared responsi- ganizations that have long clamored bility creates an environment in which for such a move; and sharing information, joint problem solv- • raise public visibility of wilderness ing, mutual strategies and strengthened and wild and scenic rivers, thereby coordination have much promise. We increasing understanding and sup- need to build on the existing interagency port for these resources. relations and identify specific actions to; Figure 1. Lassen Peak and Lake Helen in the Lassen recommend and advocate coordinated Foundations That Guide Volcanic Wilderness managed by the National Park agency actions, coordinate and improve Work in the Forest Service Service (CA). Photo by Peter Druschke. consistency in the interpretation and We will work along with partners, non- implementation of the Wilderness Act; governmental organizations, Forest and local, grassroots organizations to increase internal and external awareness, Service employees, other federal agencies, fulfill the stewardship of the resource. understanding, and support for the and state, local, and tribal governments To recognize the exemplary efforts of NWPS; and evaluate the effectiveness of to fulfill our stewardship responsibility this workforce, a series of awards are agency efforts to improve preservation, to these resources and to realize the prom- presented annually by the chief of the management, and support for the NWPS. ise of shared leadership for wilderness Forest Service in recognition of em- The continued efforts and focus of the and wild and scenic rivers. ployees, partners, and researchers for Interagency Wilderness Policy Council We will secure resources and support wilderness stewardship. They are the will achieve the outcomes envisioned by for education, training, information, and heart and soul of wilderness leader- agency leaders who chartered this group, research. The history of leadership and ship, and we will work to shore up and it will take continued emphasis and creativity in meeting the needs of the and support their efforts. energy to realize the promise. field and the needs of the NWPS has We intend to maintain a small staff given us the resources of the Arthur within the newly created director area. Expectations for the Director Carhart Interagency Wilderness Edu- To build on the accomplishments of the The specific expectations, expressed cation Institute and Aldo Leopold past and to meet our regulatory and stew- by Deputy Chief Tom Thompson, for Wilderness Research Institute. The task ardship responsibilities we will use within the director of wilderness and wild today is to ensure these institutions the new area the tremendous talent of the and scenic rivers include: have adequate resources to sustain existing staff: the regional wilderness and •broadening Forest Service owner- excellence in education, training, infor- wild and scenic rivers specialists; the re- ship of the wilderness and wild mation, and research. gional recreation, heritage, and wilderness and scenic river resource, encour- We will support and increase wil- directors; and the other chartered teams aging various staffs to give derness and wild and scenic river field like the USFS chief’s Wilderness Advisory wilderness and wild and scenic riv- presence. We have the benefit of a wil- Group, the Wilderness Monitoring Com- ers the integrated management derness manager workforce in the mittee, the Wilderness Information they need and deserve; Forest Service—members continue to Management Steering Group, and the • collaborating with partners and the find creative approaches to working Interagency Wild and Scenic Rivers Co- National Forest Foundation to on the basic stewardship responsibili- ordinating Council. achieve the Ten-year Wilderness ties. They are working with partners, We will capitalize on the ideas that Stewardship Challenge; associations, national organizations, have been generated in previous reports

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 31 A National Framework. The team has been Since the early days of Aldo Leopold, Bob Marshall, accelerating development of a technical guide for applying the protocols at the field Arthur Carhart, and other wilderness visionaries, level. The purpose of the monitoring pro- tocols is to improve wilderness the Forest Service has played a leadership role stewardship by providing managers infor- in wilderness stewardship. mation on trends in key national indicators that tie directly to the statutory require- ments of the 1964 Wilderness Act and and strategies. Existing reports, strate- treatments for noxious/invasive plants, Forest Service wilderness policy to “pre- gies, and agendas point to where the development of fire implementation serve wilderness character.” Forest Service needs to strengthen its plans that allow for a full range of fire The Wild and Scenic Rivers System focus. The Pinchot Report, Ensuring the management options in wilderness, encompasses regionally and nationally Stewardship of the National Wilderness and implementation of wilderness significant rivers that represent a broad Preservation System (Brown 2001), pro- education plans. To illustrate the ur- range of biological, ecological, cul- vides a number of recommendations gent need for increased focus on tural, and recreational resources. The and principles that serve as a strong wilderness, the Wilderness Advisory framework provided in the act for pro- foundation for pursuing renewed agency Group reported that in 2002, only 8% tecting rivers’ free-flowing condition, leadership in stewardship of the National of the 406 wildernesses under Forest water quality, and outstanding natu- Wilderness Preservation System. We will Service stewardship met the minimum ral and cultural values is viewed within use the Pinchot Report, the Forest standard criteria. This goal is not one the Forest Service and by the public Service’s “Think Like a Mountain: A that the Forest Service can accomplish as the standard for river conservation Contemporary Agenda for and Endur- alone. Collaboration with partners will and watershed protection. The actions ing Resource of Wilderness,” the be essential to success. The National identified in the Forest Service Wild Interagency “Wilderness Strategic Plan” Forest Foundation has led the charge and Scenic Rivers Program Agenda will and the “Wild and Scenic Rivers Pro- to meet the Ten-Year Wilderness Stew- help us achieve this vision, and we will gram Agenda, Free Flowing Forever,” as ardship Challenge by initiating a accomplish this work through partner- roadmaps to ensure we are maintaining matching grant program to support it. ships and interagency coordination. focus on critical stewardship issues. The grants have gone to nonprofit or- There are partners, academic institu- ganizations working with the Forest tions, and nongovernmental organizations Forest Service Wilderness Service on diverse projects, including imagining innovative and creative ap- treating invasive species, restoring proaches to stimulate projects and work and Wild and Scenic white bark pine forest, monitoring to address important wilderness steward- Rivers Program Highlights stream health, monitoring and restor- ship issues. We are collaborating with the The chief asked the National Wilder- ing sites impacted from recreation use, National Forest Foundation, nongovern- ness Advisory Group, a cross section and extensive trail restoration. The mental organizations, and academic of field-going wilderness managers, to leadership of the National Forest institutions to explore a partnership to bol- identify key areas where the agency Foundation is a model for how part- ster the ranks of skilled citizen stewards. could truly make a difference in wil- ners and foundations can directly We look forward to building relationships derness stewardship. Recently, they improve the wilderness resource. It is and partnership capacity by exploring recommended, and the National Lead- through exemplary partnerships such ideas for expanding the role of partner or- ership Team endorsed, the Ten-Year as this that we will fulfill our steward- ganizations and community-based Wilderness Stewardship Challenge, ship responsibilities to the American conservation organizations in stewardship with the goal of bringing all wilder- public and assure an enduring wilder- of wilderness and wild and scenic rivers. nesses administered by the Forest ness resource for future generations. We are also working with the WILD Foun- Service to a clearly defined minimum A Forest Service team, with interagency dation to support the International standard by the 50th anniversary of participation, has developed a monitoring Wilderness Law and Policy Roundtable, the Wilderness Act. This includes ac- protocol titled Monitoring Selected Con- and an International Government Man- complishments such as successful ditions Related to Wilderness Character: ager Symposia at the 8th World Wilderness

32 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 Mary Wagner, A Personal Side national monument), and wander the ment studies actually prepared me for desert, away from the crowded cities work in a large organization. So, I en- … it both made sense to me as well as rolled in a program for a master’s of left a lasting impression. The second public administration (MPA) that was thing was a book that my father gave tailored for practitioners and working me when I was in 5th grade. It was the professionals. It was during that time, compelling story of the plight of the too, that I was able to read and under- whooping crane and the impacts of stand much more of the amazing legacy people that caused it to go extinct. Even of the National Wilderness Preserva- at that age I was heavily influenced by tion System, and the outstanding the fact that human actions right now history of the USFS leadership in pro- are the greatest impact on what will be tecting wilderness areas while The following are extracts from an wild in the future. The third formative managing the nation’s forests. interview between IJW and Mary experience was going into a career cen- IJW: What’s your vision as you Wagner: ter at the junior college in which I was take on this new job? enrolled, and simply going through the IJW: Mary, what was your reaction job and training possibilities in an al- MW: First and foremost I want to when learning that you would be phabetical order, starting with A, then enhance the understanding and ap- named as the first U. S. Forest Ser- B, C … etc. When I got to F it said “For- preciation of America’s wilderness vice (USFS) national director of wild estry”—and this simply rang a bell with system. This is both in public outreach and scenic rivers? me. I suddenly realized that I could and, of course, within the agency it- MW: Well, of course there was a actually pursue a career working with self. Only a relative few of us actually great sense of responsibility and the forests that I love so much. work with wilderness on a daily ba- duty to the agency and to the Na- sis, and we need to convey the IJW: And the early part of your career? tional Wilderness Preservation importance and excitement of that to System. But, I actually couldn’t wipe MW: After that third experience I im- the many thousands of others who the smile off my face! It was a real mediately transferred to Humboldt State work in the science, management, ad- thrill, as it signaled an alignment of College in California and graduated with ministration, enforcement, and other my values from personal to institu- a BS degree in forest management. In the areas of the USFS. Secondly, I’d like tional to national. I loved it! third year of that program I was selected to take up the challenge issued by the for the USFS Cooperative Educational “Brown Report” [2003] and set a high IJW: Tell us about the early expe- Program, where you worked part-time performance standard for the wilder- riences in your life, connected with and finished your degree part-time … I ness system in terms of inventory, wild country, that helped shape your had to get into the forest! I worked sea- monitoring, and assessment. Finally, growth and ideas. sonally with the botany program and got I really want to expand the resources MW: There were three main expe- exposed to the San Gorgino and San and capacity that are available for wil- riences. First, was simply growing up Jacinto Wilderness Areas in the San Ber- derness stewardship in the USFS. in southern California in a family that nardino National Forest. Fabulous … a In-house, we call it “increased field loved to camp. For example, we dream come true! Later, I was working presence.” In simple terms, it’s taking would pile into the RV for a week- as a district ranger in northern Utah, and care of wilderness better, now, so it end at Joshua Tree (at that time a I realized that none of my forest manage- can take care of us in the future.

Congress (Anchorage, Alaska, 2005.) This REFERENCES MARY WAGNER is the director of is just one of many examples of our com- Brown, Perry J. 2001. Ensuring the Steward- wilderness and wild and scenic rivers, U.S. ship of the National Wilderness Preserva- Forest Service, Washington, DC. E-mail: mitment to partnerships that will expand tion System. Washington, DC: Pinchot [email protected]. and enhance our mutual wilderness stew- Institute for Conservation. ardship objectives.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 33 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

Does Wilderness Impoverish Rural Regions?

BY F. PATRICK HOLMES and WALTER E. HECOX

Abstract: A study of 113 rural counties in the American West, 43% containing designated wilderness areas, shows that for the period 1970 to 2000 there is a significant positive correlation between the percent of land in designated wilderness and population, income, and employment growth. New forms of economic activity accompany wilderness: growth of investment income and nonfarm self-employment income are correlated with the presence of wilderness.

notions that wealth stems from the existence of intact eco- logical systems, scenic opportunities, and desirable lifestyles contest traditional notions that “true wealth comes from the ground.” The American West, both old and new, fron- tier and sublime, is continually re-creating itself as a result of the pulling between these disparate notions of regional development. The stated objectives of the 1964 Wilderness Act include the goals to preserve areas primarily affected by the forces of nature and to afford the American public with opportu- nities for solitude (Wilderness Act, Section 2[c], 1964). A paradox thus is introduced: “Setting aside” relatively un- Article co-authors F. Patrick Holmes (left) and Walt Hecox (right). Photo by Sam Rees. disturbed tracts of land actually brings them into the realm of human affairs, inevitably accentuating their inextricable Introduction linkages to surrounding natural, political, and cultural land- Some areas seek regional economic prosperity through con- scapes (McCool and Cole 2000). Thus, wilderness tinued resource extraction in preservation of a traditional designation plays an important role in influencing the qual- way of life. Others seek alternative uses of the land for rec- ity of life experienced in adjacent and surrounding local reation and tourism as well as to gain spiritual fulfillment communities. and to preserve intergenerational opportunities in safeguard- The highly contested debate over federal wilderness des- ing ecological integrity (Morton 2000). Pervasive frontier ignation ultimately involves the real and perceived economic resource-extraction arguments (Patric and Harbin 1998), effects of such a designation (Duffy Deno 1998). Oftentimes emphasizing theories of economic growth and development a community will assert that designated wilderness is an based upon the appropriation and use of natural resources, impediment to economic growth by locking up potentially continually clash with preservationist arguments that em- valuable resources. They claim that traditional extractive phasize regional development based upon protection of industries like farming, mining, logging, and ranching will lands creating natural amenities and desirable lifestyles suffocate from wilderness use and management restrictions. (Rasker and Roush 1996; Power and Barrett 2001). New Others assert that the political act of preserving wilderness

(PEER REVIEWED)

34 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 natural amenity attributes like scenic nological advances in the manufactur- ness designation. The western region beauty, clean water, pristine air qual- ing industry have limited the demand was delineated as the continental por- ity, and recreational opportunities will for raw materials, and other techno- tion of the western census region as create new jobs by providing attrac- logical advances in communications determined by the U.S. Census Bureau tive places to live, work, and do and transportation have contributed (AZ, CA, CO, ID, MT, NM, NV OR, business (Power 1996). to rural economic vitality in new ways. WA, WY). Due to its high degree of This research updates the analysis Fax machines, modems, efficient de- geographic isolation and limited ac- of economic conditions in rural coun- livery carriers like Federal Express, cess to supply of labor and other ties in the American West that contain and increased commuter air travel capital, Alaska was excluded from this formally designated wilderness. Re- destinations have all contributed to the analysis. Appropriate counties for the sults provide empirical evidence in ability of small firms and individuals study were selected from a rural-ur- support of the argument that protected to work where they want to live rather ban continuum code developed by the wilderness is likely to be an asset and than live where the jobs exist (Johnson U.S. Department of Agriculture Eco- not a liability. They show that coun- and Rasker 1995a, 1995b). Access to nomic Research Service. These ties containing high proportions of natural amenities like scenic beauty, classification codes describe counties their lands devoted to federally desig- recreational opportunities, clean air, by degree of urbanization and adja- nated wilderness have experienced and small communities takes prece- cency to metro areas (Butler 1994). economic prosperity in the rural dence over the typical business and Because of the study’s intent to focus American West. Similar analysis of the individual location decisions based on on rural regions and local economic relationship of public “wildlands”— low cost of living and job opportuni- prosperity, only completely rural federally owned lands in rural counties ties (Rasker 1993). Counties with high counties containing urban populations that are under management by the amenity values should be experienc- of no more than 2,500 people were Bureau of Land Management (BLM), ing economic growth dominated by included. Of the 113 rural counties, the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the industries that benefit from the pres- 83 have a further attribute of not be- National Park Service (NPS)—to mea- ence of tourists, retirees, and ing adjacent to another county with sures of economic prosperity reveal entrepreneurs. Population growth in urban characteristics (see Figure 1). weaker but still significant correla- these regions should stimulate new This distinction, of rural counties ad- tions. The results provide additional business development and the expan- jacent versus not adjacent to urban support to the logic of amenity land sion of old businesses. counties, controls for intercounty values contributing to economic pros- commuting and cross-boundary eco- perity and viable rural communities. Study Design nomic effects. A study area of 113 rural counties in Data for population, total employ- Community Values the American West, of which 50 coun- ment, and total personal income for Many people fear government’s pro- ties contained a portion of their land the period from 1970 to 2000 were tection of the land will be at the formally devoted to wilderness, was expense of whole communities and chosen in order to conduct an analy- their economic vitality (Rasker and sis of income, employment, and Roush 1996). These fears have origi- population growth relative to the pro- nated from historical conceptions of portion of lands in the National the community’s economic base and Wilderness Preservation System periodic exposure to cyclical boom- (NWPS). Of the 50 counties contain- bust economies typical of the rural ing wilderness, the percent of total nonmetropolitan West (Power and land area designated as wilderness Barrett 2001). If valid, claims such as ranged from less than 1% to 50%. The these generate considerable opposition western United States was chosen in for further formal designation of wil- part for its high abundance of wilder- derness in rural areas. ness areas and because it is the region The economies of the rural West are containing the most public wildlands Figure 1—Study area counties in the western United undergoing profound changes. Tech- still under consideration for wilder- States

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 35 Table 1—Pearson’s correlation coefficients between percent in wilderness versus nonwilderness wilderness and other land management categories, and growth counties of the rural West. These data indicators in the American West were used to explore the quality and type Income Employment Population of employment growth occurring in wil- growth growth growth derness counties relative to 1970–2000 1970–2000 1970–2000 nonwilderness counties. A midpoint Completely rural counties method was used to estimate data for %Wilderness 0.295 0.311 0.310 employment figures in cases where in- %BLM + USFS 0.227 0.248 0.227 formation was not disclosed for %BLM + USFS + NPS 0.229 0.248 0.235 confidentiality reasons. In cases where county annual payroll data were not dis- Rural Nonadjacent counties closed it was not possible to estimate the %Wilderness 0.354 0.410 0.411 missing data, and those counties were %BLM + USFS 0.330 0.346 0.418 excluded. %BLM + USFS + NPS 0.331 0.344 0.417 Results and Discussion obtained from the U.S. Bureau of Eco- a healthy business environment into a The correlation between designated nomic Analysis’ Regional Economic rural region. wilderness area in a county and growth Information System (REIS) CD-ROM. These nontraditional income types in population, income, and employ- These data were used to calculate per- were analyzed over the period 1970 to ment is positive and statistically cent growth for the period 1970 to 2000 using shift-share analysis to deter- significant (see Table 1). This result 2000 and average annual growth for mine each county’s competitive suggests that larger proportions of for- the same time period. advantage in attracting new income rela- mal wilderness are associated with Data for nonlabor income returned tive to the American West as a whole. A growth in the completely rural coun- on investments and data on income geographic information system was used ties of the West. Furthermore, these earned by nonfarm self-proprietors were to calculate the percent of each county’s correlations became stronger as coun- also collected from the REIS CD-ROM. total land area that is preserved as part ties adjacent to metropolitan areas Together these two nontraditional in- of the NWPS. The percent of land de- were excluded, suggesting that wilder- come types were used as surrogates for voted to formally designated wilderness ness is strongly associated with new types of economic activity in rural was then correlated with the competi- successful community economic de- areas. Investment income (from divi- tive advantage calculations and the velopment in cases of geographic dends interest and rent) can bring an economic growth indicators. In addition, isolation from metropolitan areas. influx of “new” money into a region to correlations were calculated between the Also, average annual growth in popu- spur other economic growth. Nonfarm economic growth indicators and the lation, employment, and income is self-employment income, (nonfarm percent of land owned by the BLM, higher in rural counties that contain proprietor’s income) is defined as the USFS, and NPS. wilderness than in rural counties that income of sole proprietorships, partner- Finally, the U.S. Census Bureau’s have no federal lands included within ships, and tax-exempt cooperatives County Business Patterns data set was the NWPS, although both sets of ru- outside of agriculture. Growth here can used for the period 1980 to 1997 to pro- ral counties have lower growth rates be an infusion of entrepreneurship and file service employment characteristics than for the entire American West U.S. Census Region (see Table 2). Table 2—Average annual growth from 1969–2000 in growth The correlation between the per- indicators for the American West, rural counties with cent of land in a county protected as wilderness, and rural counties without wilderness. wilderness and investment income, Income Employment Population relative to the American West, is both growth growth growth positive and statistically significant The American West (11 states) 2.0 2.9 8.7 (see Table 3). A similar correlation Rural counties with wilderness 1.9 2.8 8.5 holds for the rural counties in the West Rural counties without wilderness 1.0 1.4 7.2 not adjacent to metropolitan areas.

36 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 transportation and communications have Table 3—The correlation between wilderness and competitive been the driving forces behind the tran- advantage in amenity income indicators sition to successful amenity-based Competitive Competitive economies (Johansen and Fuguitt 1984). shift in shift in investment self-employment An evaluation of both overall job income income growth in the service sector and the qual-

Completely rural counties 0.406 0.362 ity of growth in the service sector in wilderness counties is critical to under- Rural non-adjacent counties 0.442 0.382 standing whether amenity-based The correlation between the percent do the average service jobs, like hotel development strategies present viable and of land preserved as wilderness and room cleaning and fast food service sustainable options for rural America. nonfarm self-employment income is (Freudenburg and Gambling 1994). Table 4 shows employment growth in a positive and significant overall and However, the service sector includes a selected set of service sector– and natu- with those counties not adjacent to wide range of professions, from making ral resource extraction–based industries metropolitan areas (see Table 3). hamburgers and shining shoes to com- in wilderness and nonwilderness coun- Are these new businesses simply gen- puter software design and management ties. Employment is classified by the erating low-paying jobs in the services consulting. Some have suggested that the Standard Industrial Classification system sector? Jobs in mining, logging, ranch- decentralization of many industries and of the U.S. Census Bureau for the period ing, and oil drilling pay higher wages than increased mobility as a result of improved from 1980 to 1997. Employment growth in study area counties containing wilder- Table 4—Employment Growth and Change for Select Service and ness outpaces nonwilderness rural county Natural Resource-based Industries in Wilderness and growth in many major service categories Non-Wilderness Study Counties for the Period from 1980-1997. except for the insurance agents, brokers, and service category; business services; Wilderness Nonwilderness health services; and educational services. # of % of # of % of Employees Growth Employees Growth Business services employment marginally Standard industry classification in 1997 in 1997 in 1997 in 1997 declined in wilderness counties during Agricultural services 1,198 194.3% 634 52.0% the study period, but remained well above the total amount of employment in Forestry 265 120.8% 167 317.5% nonwilderness counties. Wilderness Fishing, hunting, and trapping 20 — 30 -50.0% counties tended to have far more employ- Metal mining 3,020 37.1% 3,515 522.1% ment growth from 1980 to 1997 in the Coal mining 60 -93.7% 750 -44.6% lower paying industries, including hotels Oil and gas extraction 889 -52.3% 419 -54.1% and other lodging places and eating and Apparel and accessory retail stores 1,343 148.2% 285 -25.0% drinking establishments, than in nonwilderness counties, but simulta- Eating and drinking places 9,945 82.0% 4,088 31.8% neously experienced growth in the higher Insurance agents, brokers, and service 540 52.1% 496 56.5% paying services, such as legal services and Real estate 2,819 96.4% 542 -10.4% real estate services relative to Hotels and other lodging places 9,614 125.3% 1,800 54.2% nonwilderness counties in the rural West. Personal services 743 69.6% 418 30.6% What about growth and change in Business services 1,318 -12.1% 651 171.3% natural resourcebased employment? Amusement and recreation services 10,024 136.8% 750 111.3% Extractive industry employment growth declined for coal mining and oil and gas Health services 5,147 156.7% 5,806 190.6% extraction in both wilderness and Legal services 499 40.2% 398 15.0% nonwilderness counties, a trend that Educational services 641 364.5% 412 930.0% mirrored experience throughout the Social services 1,414 169.8% 1,113 87.1% nation during that time period. The only Membership organizations 1,081 84.5% 837 27.6% extractive industry category where wil-

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 37 Conclusion Table 5—Business establishment growth and change for select Growth in savings by middle-age work- service and natural resource-based industries in wilderness and ers over the past 10 years has been nonwilderness study counties for the period from 1980–1997 substantial, creating a new form of “ba- Wilderness Nonwilderness sic” income for local communities as # of % of # of % of new residents flock to rural regions Businesses Growth Businesses Growth (Nelson 1999). Likewise, the prolifera- Standard industry classification in 1997 in 1997 in 1997 in 1997 tion of small businesses and a healthy Agricultural services 200 257.1% 135 145.5% business environment are helping wil- Forestry 19 111.1% 14 600.0% derness counties attract both investment Fishing, hunting, and trapping 2 — 5 66.7% and self-employment income. Growth is not just occurring in low-wage busi- Metal mining 28 -30.0% 21 -4.5% nesses. Wilderness counties are Coal mining 1 -85.7% 4 -50.0% experiencing growing employment in Oil and gas extraction 64 -13.5% 51 -17.7% many of the high-wage service sector in- Apparel and accessory retail stores 207 109.1% 45 -38.4% dustries in the rural West, as compared Eating and drinking places 1,068 88.4% 635 55.6% with nonwilderness counties of the same Insurance agents, brokers, and service 153 128.4% 119 88.9% study region. Real estate 558 186.2% 170 71.7% One problem with wilderness des- ignation is not that it limits growth, but Hotels and other lodging places 510 104.0% 218 43.4% rather that it promotes demographic Personal services 151 77.6% 86 -4.4% and economic growth at rates that may Business services 327 463.8% 137 495.7% jeopardize the preservation of the natu- Amusement and recreation services 350 284.6% 119 164.4% ral amenities themselves (Power 1996). Health services 356 68.7% 221 33.1% In order to understand the economic Legal services 132 37.5% 83 45.6% impact of wilderness designation deci- Educational services 56 409.1% 24 300.0% sions, and how best to preserve the ecology of a region, environmentalists Social services 232 346.2% 174 270.2% must acknowledge the impacts of pres- Membership organizations 323 233.0% 239 184.5% ervation on local communities, derness counties lagged substantially quality of growth. Table 6 shows the including rapid growth that often out- behind nonwilderness counties was the average annual wage for selected em- strips communities’ infrastructure and metal mining category, where about ployment categories in the study dramatically changes the character of 2,750 new jobs were created in Eureka region and, for each selected category once-rural towns and counties. County, Nevada, during the study pe- of natural resource and service-based This study has demonstrated that lo- riod, accounting for nearly the entire employment, new growth in jobs as a cal areas in the American West with difference. percent of those selected industries for designated wilderness are not being Table 5 shows growth in the num- wilderness and nonwilderness coun- impoverished. For the period 1970 to ber of business establishments for these ties. This analysis suggests that 2000, growth of nontraditional employ- same industry categories in the study- although there is some validity to the ment and income has been more rapid area counties. Wilderness counties only argument that wilderness counties at- and sustained in counties that include lag substantially behind nonwilderness tract growth in response to added designated wilderness. Data for the pe- counties in a single category, the metal tourism in the lower paying jobs of the riod 1980 to 1997 show that the jobs mining classification, while outpacing service sector, growth is also simulta- being created, both in the service sector nonwilderness counties in business cre- neously occurring in the higher paying and the natural resource extraction cat- ation in all service categories. professional services and some natu- egories, contain a mix of wage levels. The types of jobs being added in ral resource extraction categories at Local communities need to move rural counties and the associated av- higher rates in Wilderness counties beyond the long debate over the eco- erage wages reveal much about the than in nonwilderness counties. nomic consequences of wilderness

38 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 Local government: Local business climate Table 6—Average annual wage and percent of new jobs in and quality of life. Montana Policy Review. selected industries in wilderness and nonwilderness study ———. 1995b. The role of economic and qual- counties for the period from 1980–1997 ity of life values in rural business location. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(4): 405–416. Average McCool , Stephen F., David N. Cole. 2000. Wil- annual % of new jobs derness Within the Context of Larger Social and wage in industry Biophysical Systems. Ogden, UT: USDA Forest Standard industry classification Wilderness Nonwilderness Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Morton, Pete. 2000. Wildland Economics: Agricultural services 22,966 3.4% 3.0% Theory and Practice. Ogden, UT: USDA For- Forestry 26,706 0.6% 1.7% est Service Proceedings RMRS-P-15-VOL-2. Nelson, Peter B. 1999. Quality of life, Nontra- Oil and gas extraction 38,247 -4.2% -6.7% ditional income, and economic growth: New Apparel and accessory stores 11,219 3.5% -1.3% development opportunities for the rural West. Rural Development Perspectives, 14(2): 32. Eating and drinking places 8,507 19.3% 13.5% Patric, James H., and Raymond L. Harbin. 1998. Insurance agents, brokers, and service 21,424 0.8% 2.4% Whither wilderness? How much is enough? The Heartland Institute 88: 3. Real estate 20,987 6.0% -0.9% Power, Thomas Michael. 1996. Soul of the wilder- Hotels and other lodging places 12,349 23.0% 8.6% ness: Wilderness economics must look through Personal services 13,253 1.3% 1.3% the windshield, not the rearview mirror. Inter- national Journal of Wilderness, 2(1): 5–9. Business services 19,344 -0.8% 5.6% Power, Thomas M., and Richard Barrett. 2001. Amusement and recreation services 14,147 24.9% 5.4% Post Cowboy Economics: Pay and Prosper- ity in the New American West. Washing- Health services 19,012 13.5% 52.0% ton, DC: Island Press. Legal services 21,097 0.6% 0.7% Rasker, Ray, and Jon Roush. 1996. The eco- nomic role of environmental quality in west- Educational services 28,044 2.2% 5.1% ern public lands. A Wolf in the Garden: The Social services 11,244 3.8% 7.1% Land Rights Movement and the New Envi- ronmental Debate. Lanham, MO: Rowan Membership organization 9,929 2.1% 2.5% and Littlefield: 185–205. Total for selected industries 100.0% 100.0% Rasker, Raymond. 1993. Rural fevelopment, conservation, and public policy in the greater Yellowstone ecosystem. Society and Natu- designation. Rather, the discussion REFERENCES ral Resources, 6: 111. and debate now should be focused on Butler, Margaret A. and Calvin L. 1994. Beale, Wilderness Act. 1964. (P.L 88-577, 78 Stat. rural-urban continuum codes for metro and how to make decisions about the types 890; 16 U.S.C. 1 1 21 (note), 1 1 31–1136). nonmetro counties, 1993. Agriculture and Worster, Donald. 1992. Under Western Skies: of places rural areas want to become. Rural Economy Division, Economic Research Nature and History in the American West. How can these rural communities be Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture. New York: Oxford University Press. Staff Report No. 9425. made sustainable, both by protecting Duffy Deno, Kevin T. 1998. The effect of federal F. PATRICK HOLMES is program coordinator their natural amenity capital endow- wilderness on county growth in the inter- of the Rockies Project at Colorado College, ment and by shaping the resulting mountain western United States. Journal of Colorado Springs, CO. E-mail: socioeconomic character of the sur- Regional Science, 38(1): 110. Freudenburg, William R., Robert Gambling. [email protected]. rounding regions to maintain healthy 1994. Natural resources and rural poverty: WALT HECOX is Professor of Economics communities as growth occurs? These A closer look. Society and Natural Re- and head of the Colorado College State of concerns shape the new arena where sources, 7: 6. the Rockies Project and Sustainable productive research on rural growth Johansen, H. E., and G. V. Fuguitt. 1984. The Changing Rural Village: Demographic and Development Workshop, Economics in the American West can be focused Economic Trends since 1950. Cambridge Department, Colorado College, Colorado and results applied. Results will help MA: Ballinger Publishing Co. Springs, CO. E-mail: inform communities, land managers, Johnson, Jerry D., and Raymond Rasker. 1995a. [email protected]. and political leaders as well as contrib- ute to well-versed decisions about how Local economic prosperity in the rural American West best to proceed with the preservation of our remaining wildlands and their is correlated with the presence of wilderness. associated rural communities.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 39 SCIENCE and RESEARCH

PERSPECTIVES FROM THE ALDO LEOPOLD WILDERNESS RESEARCH INSTITUTE

Travel Simulation Modeling

An Emerging Tool for Visitor Management in Wilderness

BY DAVID N. COLE

he amount, type, timing, and location of visitor use all have profound effects on the quality of the natu- T ral resources and visitor experiences in wilderness. Therefore, it is important to monitor the flow of visitation, in space and over time, and predict how distributions are likely to change in response to both management actions and factors that are not subject to managerial control. In some situations this is easily done. However, the ease of monitoring and predicting use declines as size of area in- creases, complexity of traffic flow increases, and the degree to which traffic flow is controlled by management decreases. For all these reasons, monitoring and predicting visitor flows In a recent issue of IJW, van Wagtendonk (2003) de- is both difficult and important in wilderness. scribed work conducted in the 1970s and 1980s to develop Travel simulation models have huge potential as tools travel simulation models for wilderness. That work was way for facilitating the planning and management of visitor use ahead of its time. The ideas were powerful but technology distribution in situations where monitoring and prediction lagged. Today, technology has caught up and efforts are un- of visitor flow is difficult. There are at least three ways in derway to make wilderness travel simulation a reality. Two which simulation modeling of recreation use can contrib- efforts have been in the forefront of this work. Bob Man- ute to improved wilderness management. First, simulation ning and his associates at the University of Vermont modeling can improve the quality and increase the cost- (particularly Steve Lawson, now at Virginia Tech) have taken effectiveness of monitoring programs. Simulation makes it a commercially available general-purpose simulation pack- possible to use easily measured indicators (e.g., the num- age designed to simulate manufacturing and business ber of cars entering through an entrance station or parked systems and used it to model recreation systems. Their work at a trailhead) to monitor hard-to-measure parameters (e.g., emphasizes such management applications as predicting number of encounters or number of groups walking on maximum use levels that can be accommodated without particular trails). Second, simulation modeling can help fine- exceeding predetermined standards of use density. Randy tune existing management programs. For example, how Gimblett, University of Arizona, and Bob Itami, much would visitor use quotas have to be reduced to meet Geodimensions Pty. Ltd., have devoted their efforts to de- certain social standards? Third, simulation modeling can velopment of a special purpose simulator (RBSim), designed be used to evaluate alternative future scenarios. Simulation specifically to model recreation behavior. RBSim is inte- could be used to estimate how travel patterns and the num- grated with GIS technology and allows for rule-based ber of encounters between groups might change with increased use in the future. Continued on page 44

40 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES

Wilderness in the Ruaha National Park, Tanzania

BY MGG MTAHIKO

he Ruaha National Park is in southern Tanzania, an TANAPA History area relatively free from tourism impacts and still Protected areas were first gazetted during the colonial era. T exceptionally wild. Its greater ecosystem is approxi- Following independence in 1961, more conservation areas mately 45,000 square kilometers (17,374 sq. mi.), were gazetted in different categories: national parks (4% of consisting of the park itself (10,200 sq. km [3,938 sq. mi.]) total land area in the country) where no human habitation and surrounding game reserves that are used mainly for (except for park and tourism sport hunting. investment staff) and hunting The Tanzanian National Parks Authority (TANAPA) is allowed by law; game re- manages the Ruaha National Park, and is a trusteeship un- serves (10% of total land area) der the Ministry of Natural Resources and Tourism. Much where tourist hunting is al- of its funding is derived from tourism revenues earned from lowed; game controlled areas visits to the better-known parks in north Tanzania, such as where residential hunting is Serengeti. These revenues are shared by all of Tanzania’s allowed; forest reserves (15% national parks. Revenues earned from hunting in game re- of total land area) for conser- serves contribute to management of those huge buffer zones vation of forests; and around the parks. conservation areas where hu- TANAPA evaluates the potential for wilderness designa- man habitation and wildlife tion in all national parks. When wilderness is designated coexist. Currently TANAPA Article author MGG Mtahiko. and approved by the park’s Game Management Plan/Envi- manages core-protected areas ronmental Impact Assessment (GMP/EIA), TANAPA then that cover 4% of the country’s total land area, in 12 na- manages wilderness zones for use that leaves them unim- tional parks, that form the major samples of different biomes paired for future generations. For example, and ecological systems. wilderness-oriented tour operators that provide opportu- To ensure an appropriate balance between preservation nities for remote hiking experiences may be authorized to and use of resources, TANAPA developed a strategic plan- use wilderness areas if they meet the provisions of the ning process to prepare general management and zone plans TANAPA national policy, comply with the zoning regula- for national parks. TANAPA is mandated to tions and limits of acceptable use stipulations detailed in manage and regulate the use of areas designated as the park’s GMP/EIA, and comply with all TANAPA regula- national parks by such means and measures to pre- tions and permits. serve the country’s heritage, encompassing natural The Wilderness Zone in Ruaha National Park comprises and cultural resources, both tangible and intangible resource values, including the fauna and flora, wild- 6,022 square kilometers (3,733 sq. mi.). Within this area life habitat, natural processes, wilderness quality, and lies a seldom-visited and remote wilderness core known as scenery therein. The park resources should provide the Sunguviula Plateau. Recently, the WILD Foundation pro- for human benefit and enjoyment of the same in such vided funding with the Sierra Club to support the preparation manner and by such means as will leave them unim- of a wilderness management plan for the Sunguviula area. paired for future generations.

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 41 History of The original Management Zone Plan Ruaha National Park (1994) described eight zones within The area was first recognized as part of Ruaha National Park: Wilderness Zone, the Saba River Game Reserve in 1910, Semi-Wilderness Zone, Conservation which was regazetted as the Rungwa General Use North Zone, Conservation Game Reserve in 1946. In 1964, the General Use South Zone, Core Preser- southern portion of this reserve was de- vation Zone, Conservation Limited Use clared the Ruaha National Park, and in Zone, Transit Road Zone, and Park 1974 a smaller section to southeast of the Administration Zone. Great Ruaha River was added to com- plete the boundaries that exist today. The 12 park management objectives Development of infrastructure has are to been largely restricted to the eastern- •protect and maintain the park’s excep- tional resources, including its Park ecologist, Gladys Ng’umbi, identifies new plant. central portion of the park in the Rift Valley bordering the Great Ruaha River. wilderness character, as well as its full The first commercial tourism inter- range of landforms, habitats, and Primary objectives/purposes of na- est in the park was the construction biodiversity; tional parks are to preserve of the Ruaha River Camp (now Lodge) • ensure that park management is in •areas possessing exceptional values by Foxtreks Ltd. at Mwayangi in 1981. harmony with the conservation re- that illustrate the natural or cul- Three more tented camps are operat- quirements of the entire tural resources of the country; ing now: Mwagusi Safari Camp, Ruaha—Rungwa—Kizigo—Muhesi •areas that offer superlative opportu- Jongomero Tented Camp, and ecosystem; nities for public benefit, enjoyment, Mdonya River Camp. All camps oper- • introduce better control over fire, the or scientific studies; ate within current policy for the use of natural resources, and the oc- •areas with outstanding examples of preservation and management of wil- currence of exotic species in the park; a particular type of resource; and derness in Tanzania’s national parks. • develop and promote a range of • water and soil resources critical to Visitors’ surveys in 1993/1994 indi- low volume, low impact but high maintain ecological integrity and cated that the park’s wilderness quality, high return, visitor recre- that support the subsistence needs character was far and away the most ation and tourism investment of people outside park boundaries. appreciated of its qualities, and the opportunities, including wilder- vast majority of visitors pleaded ness walking, within stated limits And to ensure that against development that would de- of acceptable use; • parks retain a high degree of in- stroy this. Tourism has increased •provide education and appropriate tegrity as true, accurate, and yearly, and during July 2002 to June infrastructure for administration unspoiled examples of a resource; 2003 included 7,654 visitors. and tourism, subject to the assess- • management plans for parks are de- The Ruaha National Park realizes ment and monitoring of their veloped by interdisciplinary teams only about 30% of its annual budget environmental impact both pre- composed of appropriate profession- from revenues that have been collected and post-construction; als with the best available information from visitors to the park itself. All the • develop interpretation facilities to achieve a balance between preser- parks in Tanzania are regarded equally and services for better visitor ap- vation and use that does not adversely since they are all dealing with TANAPA’s preciation of the park’s resources; impact park resources and values; main goal of conservation. The revenue • establish an ecological research and •a quality visitor experience rather collected is shared with all the parks and monitoring program to provide than mass tourism at the expense the head office administration for recur- baseline resource information, and of park values and resources; and rent expenditures, with some set aside monitor rates and degree of change • optimum levels of revenue and ben- for development programs and govern- in relation to acceptable limits; efits accrue to the national economy, ment tax. Since wilderness is a zone • ensure that local communities share the parks, and communities, with- within the park, it is funded in that con- in benefits accruing from the park out impairing park resources. text and not regarded separately. and encourage local inhabitants to

42 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 become involved in sustainable limited to a few fairly narrow areas that natural resources management; become waterlogged in the rainy season. • identify and protect significant his- Rainfall averages 400 to 500 millimeters torical or contemporary sites of (16–20 in.) increasing to the west. cultural significance, and allow The central section, a large wedge of access to appropriate social groups; slightly higher land, is separated from • raise conservation awareness the previous section by the Msembe— among local communities through Mpululu Road. It is less flat, but still with a targeted education program; few significant hills. The vegetation is •preserve the park’s water catchment classified mainly as Miombo transition areas and hydrological functions, with increasingly typical Brachystegia Environmental education introduced into community schools. particularly in respect to the Great woodland occurring at higher altitudes Ruaha and Mzombe Rivers; and and toward the west. Drainage lines are flora and fauna, some of which are • balance the park’s budget prima- more prominent, together with their ac- classified by IUCN as endangered rily by increasing revenue from companying vegetation of Acacia (African hunting dog), endemic, tourism. woodland on the fringes and fairly nar- threatened (e.g., cheetah, leopard, row, coarse grass centrally. elephant, etc.), and rare. These re- Unlike South Africa and other The southwestern section is varied quire sound management initiatives countries where “wilderness” is a le- terrain and contains several high ridges for their survival. The core preser- gally recognized designation, in of mountains culminating in the vation zone is set to secure sensitive Tanzania the term refers to a form of Insunkavyola plateau on the park’s west- and fragile parts of the along the resources management in a zone ern boundary. This high ground is Great Ruaha river. within a core protected area. This is interspersed with wide valleys. The veg- •Wildlife behavior—It is necessary by far the largest zone and comprises etation is dominated throughout by to ensure naturalness of the park most of the park above the Ruaha es- Miombo woodland. There are many riv- through proper use of designated carpment (6,022 sq. km [3,733 sq. ers and streams, and many of the facilities so as to protect the ani- mi.]; 59% of the area). It is an area wetlands are semi-permanently water- mals from continuous disturbance stretching approximately 170 kilome- logged. Water is freely available to wildlife in their habitats. ters (105 mi.) between the park’s all year round. Annual rainfall averages •Vegetation and soils—The park northeastern and southwestern ex- 500 to 800 millimeters (20–32 in.), in- aims to control usage of surface tremities, with a variable width of up creasing from east to west and with water to sustain vegetation and to 60 kilometers (37 mi.) and bounded increasing altitude. maintain natural processes. to the north by the southern edge of •Water resources—Continuous sur- the Semi-Wilderness Zone. For de- Issues and Challenges face and subsurface water recharge scriptive purposes, it is subdivided The main management problems and flows are critically important in into three sections. concerns that the GMP has sought to ecological processes that require The section to the east of the address are constant availability. Msembe—Mpululu Road is fairly flat • Biodiversity—There is a scarcity of •Visitor experience/limits of accept- country with relatively few small, mainly dry season surface water sources able use—Visitor use limits are set granite hills. This area is covered by a because most rivers are sand rivers, to ensure minimal impact of hu- mosaic of mainly Combretum- only flow on the surface during the man activities to the park resources Commiphora dominated mixed woodland rain season (mid December through for optimal visitor experience. and shrub. Few major drainage lines oc- mid May) and cease flowing on the • Cultural and scenic resources— cur and no significant permanent water surface during dry season. Con- The resources will have adequate sources exist. Acacia species are more trolled use of surface water will protection for continued usage by common along drainage lines. Some maintain the flow, which is impor- the neighboring communities and more open areas do occur on very shal- tant for existing biodiversity. tourists. low stony soils, but these contain sparse • Endangered species—The park is • Neighboring communities—The shrubs, and the only real grasslands are endowed with different species of park has negligible/low impact on

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 43 quantity and quality of the water • Significant wildlife resources—El- Conclusion that runs through it, and it is the ephants, sables, roan antelopes, TANAPA has the task of protecting the obligation of the park to ensure and greater and lesser kudu are park’s resources, as well as developing that this is continued for use of the important wildlife species. Their appropriate tourism facilities. It must downstream users. abundance and unique coinci- also ensure that the communities ad- • Park operations—Maintain signs dence in Ruaha is one of the park’s jacent to the park benefit from the on all park boundary lines for ease major attractions. The park shall revenues collected. There is always an of recognition by the communities ensure protection of all wildlife in issue of how to balance development and other stakeholders. and around the park. for tourism and conservation. Limits • Revenue and tourism—Develop of acceptable use as specified in the game-viewing facilities for game Local Community GMP/EIA provide appropriate safe- drives, and provide optimum enjoy- Involvement guards. ment and benefit without impairing The declaration process of a national park The management of the propor- resources and proper administration starts with the local communities in the tionately immense Wilderness Zone in of revenue collection. adjacent areas of the intended protected the Ruaha National Park creates inevi- • The Great Ruaha and Mzombe Riv- area. The communities are given oppor- table budget challenges. Scarce funds ers—These two river systems tunity to give their opinion, starting with must be utilized where the need is partly form the boundary of the the local villages and continuing to the greatest. This situation is expected to park. The Great Ruaha River forms district and regional levels. During these improve as revenues from tourism in the main water source for animals stages, all matters forwarded by the com- the park, and from other sources, in- during the dry season (July munities are discussed and sorted out crease. Amid globalization, it may be through December). The river jointly between the government and com- inconceivable to maintain areas that ceases to flow during the dry sea- munities. Having been agreed to by all do not generate enough funds. How- son due to various uncontrolled concerned parties, the matter is forwarded ever, the organization’s main goal of human activities farther upstream to the responsible ministry with the rel- sustainable conservation of resources of the park boundary. evant proposals. With the satisfaction of and habitats remains. All parks are of • Unique interface on miombo and the ministry responsible, a document is equal status and in terms of conserva- east african Acacia/Commiphora prepared for the cabinet to discuss, includ- tion and needs are rated on a similar communities and riverine commu- ing the legal issues—especially on the level, no matter the amount of revenue nities—this is a unique interface of proposed boundaries—before the bill is collected. vegetation communities in the park tabled for the parliament. This process and needs protection and preven- sometimes takes much time, but it is im- MR. MTAHIKO is the warden of Ruaha tion of introduction of species that portant, as the communities are the key National Park in southern Tanzania; e-mail: are not common to the ecosystem. stakeholders. [email protected].

From TRAVEL SIMULATION on page 40

simulations, in addition to the proba- ward more coordinated development REFERENCES bilistic simulations used in the original of this technology. Differences between van Wagtendonk, J. W. 2003. The wilderness simulation model: A historical perspective. In- Wilderness Use Simulation Model and approaches are being explored and ternational Journal of Wilderness, 9(2): 9–13. in the applications that Manning’s new applications are being under- group has conducted. taken. We are currently writing a DAVID N. COLE is a research biologist with Recently, the Aldo Leopold Wilder- report that will describe the status of the Aldo Leopold Wilderness Research ness Research Institute, with support travel simulation modeling for parks Institute, Rocky Mountain Research Station, from the National Park Service, has and wilderness, including case stud- Forest Service, P.O. Box 8089, Missoula, MT 59807, USA. Telephone: 406-542- been working with both groups of ies that illustrate how the models work 4199. E-mail: [email protected]. modelers to share ideas and work to- and what they can be used for.

44 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 WILDERNESS DIGEST

Announcements and Wilderness Calendar

COMPILED BY STEVE HOLLENHORST

40th Anniversary of the breeding areas for six species of marine 101414, or for the product name— Wilderness Act turtles and its many islands are impor- National Wilderness Preservation tant refuges for species under threat on System. Cost is $7.00 plus shipping and Many events and ac- the mainland,” Dr. Stone said. The IPA handling. tivities have been program is a part of the Natural Heri- held through the tage Trust, the largest commitment by United States over Mexico Designates an Australian government to environ- the last 12 months to mental management and sustainable 34 Areas As celebrate the 40th agriculture. Over five years, the IPA Protected Marshland anniversary of the U.S. Wilderness Act. program has added 13.8 million hect- Mexico’s Environmental Department des- For example, Jackie Twiss and staff at ares (34.1 million acres) of unique ignated 34 areas as protected marshland, the Black Hills National Forest designed ecosystems to the National Reserve Sys- ensuring they will fall under the protec- and sold a lapel pin to commemorate tem. For further information on IPAs, tion of the international Ramsar the celebration. For other information, see the Australian Department of the Convention on Wetlands. This designa- go to www. wilderness.net. Environment and Heritage website at tion means 51 areas in 17 states are now http://www.deh.gov.au/indigenous/ipa/ protected by the Ramsar Convention, Australian Indigenous . making Mexico the nation with the third- Protected Areas highest number of convention-protected An area of the Arnhem coast that con- USGS Publishes New areas worldwide. Signed in Ramsar, Iran, tains some of the most remote and Wilderness Map in 1971, the Ramsar Convention is an intact large natural systems in Austra- For the 40th anniversary of the U. S. intergovernmental treaty that provides the lia has received funding from the Wilderness Act, the U.S. Geological framework for national action and inter- Australian government to investigate its Survey (USGS) has published an up- national cooperation for the conservation development as an Indigenous Pro- dated map of the National Wilderness and correct use of wetlands. There are tected Area (IPA). Dr. Sharman Stone, Preservation System. Also for the first more than 1,350 Ramsar Convention– parliamentary secretary for the environ- time, this large format product (42 protected sites worldwide, spanning ment and heritage, congratulated the inches by 46 inches) shows Alaska and 119.6 million hectares (295.5 million Anindilyakwa Land Council, traditional Hawaii at the same projection as the acres). Among the areas designated as owners and members of the contiguous United States and features protected wetlands were the Laguna de Anindilyakwa community for their ef- a striking back page that incorporates Sayula, in Jalisco state, where Guadalajara forts in protecting and conserving their facts, figures, and original artwork. The is located, as well Tortuguera Mexiquillo country. “Anindilyakwa (Groote map is available for purchase online at Beach in Michoacan state. The new areas Eylandt) is located in a biologically the USGS Store (www.usgs.gov/) either include more than 4 million hectares (10 important area. It includes important by searching for the product number, million acres) of marsh and swamp that

Submit announcements and short news articles to STEVE HOLLENHORST, IJW Wilderness Digest editor. E-mail: [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 45 are home to dozens of species of birds, protected areas and threatened species, many other points, among them: the fish, and diverse wildlife. Environmental but the new work offers the first global important nonmaterial values of wild Secretary Alberto Cardenas said the view of that situation by evaluating the areas, the need for inventory of wilder- Ramsar Convention requires Mexico’s predicament of some of the best docu- ness areas, creation of a state register in government to increase spending to pro- mented animal species, said Ana S.L. Ukraine of wild areas and wild rivers, tect the newly designated areas, but he Rodrigues, a research fellow at Conser- and close support from and cooperation would not say how much additional con- vation International in Washington, D.C. with the World Wilderness Congress. servation efforts in the areas will cost. “Even for these species that we know well, For more information, contact Anatoliy “Today we want to give our commitment we’re finding these levels of unprotection, Podobaylo at [email protected]. to protecting our wetlands as well as our of gaps. It’s alarming,” said Rodrigues. adherence to the Ramsar Convention a Source: Associated Press. big jump-start,” Cardenas said. Source: Bush Administration Associated Press. Wilderness Conference in Proposes Repealing Former Soviet Union States Roadless Rule No Protection for Some The First International Wilderness Con- The Bush administration has proposed a Threatened or Endangered ference for former countries of the Soviet repeal of the Roadless Area Conservation Species Union took place on April 24–25, 2004, Rule, issued in the waning days of the Hundreds of imperiled species around the in Kiev. It was organized by the Kiev Clinton presidency. The proposal an- world, from a tiny opossum to a radiant Ecological & Cultural Center (on the nounced, by U.S. secretary of agriculture blue bird, lack protection from human occasion of its 15th anniversary), the Ann M. Veneman, would replace a Janu- encroachment despite the vast amount Ukrainian Coalition for Wilderness, and ary 2001 rule banning building roads and of land set aside for conservation, a new the International Social-Ecological cutting timber on 58.5 million acres (23.7 study warns. Researchers said the find- Union. Financial support was provided million hectares) of roadless terrain in na- ings are a wake-up call pointing to the by the MacArthur Foundation. The pur- tional forests with a policy giving state need for new strategies to ensure that pose of conference was to coordinate governors a say in how the backcountry protected lands and the home ranges of cross-sector efforts on protection of wil- was managed. Most of the land is in 12 threatened species overlap. The findings derness in the former Soviet Union western states. The proposal would give appear in the April 8 issue of the journal states. The meeting introduced the wil- governors considerable input on the fu- Nature. In the study, researchers from derness concept, provided practical ture of roadless areas. It would be up to nine nations compared maps of more information on protection area manage- the states to petition the federal govern- than 100,000 protected areas around the ment, allowed for the exchange of ment if they wanted to maintain globe to maps of the ranges of 11,633 experience between public and private road-building bans on all or part of the animal species—mostly tropical and environmental organizations in wild affected forestland. They also could ask many threatened or endangered. They nature, and created a mechanism for federal officials to open the land to road found that for about 12% of the species, these countries to participate in the up- construction, whether for logging, gas or their ranges did not include parks or na- coming 8th World Wilderness Congress. oil development, or off-road vehicle use. ture preserves that would protect them Forty-five participants attended, repre- The final decision on the petition would from human activities such as logging, senting public agencies, nonprofit be made by the U.S. agriculture secretary. hunting, or mining operations. And groups, academics, and managers of re- Mark E. Rey, the agriculture undersecretary among 3,896 species deemed threatened, serves and national parks in Ukraine, who oversees the U.S. Forest Service, said they found that 20% had no protection. Russia, Belarus, and Poland. In addition the proposed regulations were an attempt About 300 of those animals are on the to the plenary sessions, roundtable dis- to resolve a 40-year-long fight over the verge of extinction. They include a tiny cussions on problems and issues were roadless areas, which make up about 30% Colombian marsupial called Handley’s held. Consensus was reached on the of the country’s national forests. Environ- slender mouse opossum and Indonesia’s necessity of protecting wilderness not mental groups have criticized the cerulean paradise-flycatcher, a bright blue only for its nonmaterial and economic move. The proposed rule is at www. bird with 100 or so survivors confined to values for human civilization, but also roadless.fs.fed.us. a single forest-topped extinct volcano. because wild nature has an inherent right Smaller studies have shown gaps between to exist. The participants considered Continued on page 27

46 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 Letter to the Editor Telling the Truth mail requires “free wilderness permits to make the parking area part of the … for all overnight trips. … They are Fee Demonstration Program. about Wilderness not required for day hikes.” The other What are the consequences associ- park requires wilderness permits “for ated with this error? First, I wonder A Call for Honesty all overnight camping outside desig- about the accuracy of the rest of the BY CAROL GRIFFIN nated campgrounds. … Permits are not information contained in the e-mail. required for day hikes, except in the Second, what will happen if readers A recent e-mail made me question the Mt. Whitney area.” The main trail to cite the erroneous information in their degree to which minor errors—bend- Mt. Whitney is managed by the USFS letters to Congress? Will the senator’s ing the truth—occur in nongovernment and it requires a permit, but there is staff check the claim because so many organization (NGO) communiqués. no cost unless the hiker wants to re- people mention it? Will the subcom- The messages are usually designed to serve a campsite. Thus, the two mittee he’s chairing subsequently motivate citizens to call or write examples cited are erroneous; there is dismiss public comment because it agency personnel or members of Con- no fee required for backcountry hik- contains inaccurate information? gress in a concerted effort to protect ing as they stated. Finally, if instead of a legislative wilderness. We do a disservice to wil- I e-mailed this information back to committee, we had been entreated to derness protection efforts when we the author, noting that in some cases comment to an agency on a bend the truth. land management agencies require a free backcountry or wilderness plan, what An urgent message arrived in my permit, but that I knew of no cases where would the fate of our comments be? e-mail announcing a bill making its a visitor is assessed a fee for hiking as The NGO in question reminds the way through Congress. The bill ad- the e-mail had stated. I also noted that reader that we can use its sample let- dressed the Fee Demonstration some areas require a fee for backcountry ter, but that we should “add to it and Program as it applied to the National camping, but hiking and camping are use your own words! Look-alike e- Park Service (NPS) backcountry. Al- not the same thing. The majority of mails carry less weight.” If we all though backcountry is not the same backcountry users are day-use hikers, included the same inaccurate data, our thing as congressionally designated not overnight campers, and despite the letters and e-mails may be given less wilderness, the NPS often uses e-mail’s allegation, they are not being weight or disregarded all together. backcountry as an umbrella term that charged a backcountry hiking fee. Protection of wilderness requires a includes wilderness, areas recom- To the organization’s credit, they well-educated and involved public. mended for wilderness designation, revised the next e-mail request for ac- NGOs provide a valuable public ser- and nonwilderness areas. tion sent out five days after my vice in commenting on legislative Upon reading the e-mail, I was sur- question. This time the e-mail said, proposals and agency plans, and in prised to learn that “National Parks are “National Parks are now adding fur- distilling lengthy reports into a more now adding further new fees (on top ther new fees (on top of entry fees) readable format for the public. NGOs of entry fees) such as backcountry hik- such as backcountry hiking and camp- cannot afford to have the veracity of ing fees, parking fees, etc.” This piqued ing fees, parking fees, etc. [emphasis their information called into question. my curiosity, so that day I e-mailed the added].” Though an improvement, it If NGOs bend the truth and the pub- author and asked, “Which National remains inaccurate in the implication lic believes it, both groups’ Parks have backcountry hiking fees?” that there are fees for backcountry hik- participation may be diluted in their Three days later the author sent me ing. (It is of course true, that to do effectiveness. The ends do not justify an e-mail in response stating that one backcountry camping you must park the means. Surely wilderness demands park had a voluntary backcountry fee, somewhere and hike, but you can hike this kind of honest effort. and another park had a backcountry without camping.) Hikers can end up camping fee. I checked the relevant being charged to hike if a trailhead CAROL GRIFFIN is an associate professor NPS websites and found a statement occurs outside a national park—on at Grand Valley State University, Allendale, that one of the parks noted in the e- BLM or USFS land if they have decided MI. E-mail: [email protected].

International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3 47 Book Reviews

Reconstructing Conservation: bring new perspectives and challenges written revisioning of conservation, one Finding Common Ground. that help the reader reconceptualize that makes genuine and positive at- Edited by Ben Minteer and Robert conservation in the 21st century. tempts to answer some of the pointed Manning. 2003. Island Press, Most of the authors seem to agree questions about wilderness and conser- Washington DC, and Covelo, CA. 334 that the contemporary conservation vation posed by constructivists. pp. $55.00 (hardcover). movement is weakened by focusing on Reviewed by JOHN SHULTIS who is the William Cronon’s The Trouble with Wil- protecting specific parcels of land rather Book Editor for IJW. derness was a real shot across the bow than ecological processes at large scales, for protected area/resource managers ignoring nonwilderness landscapes, Discovering Eden and the conservation movement. Much conceiving of nature as a steady state By Alex Hall, 2003. Key Porter Books, as Lynn White’s Historical Roots of our system, and using the same approaches Toronto. 224 pp., $27.95 CAD (softcover). Ecologic Crisis affected the environmen- (e.g., wilderness protection) despite Within Canada’s Northwest Territories tal movement in 1967, Cronon’s work major changes in society that require and Nunavut lie the Barren Lands, the is already a seminal article, one that has new approaches and techniques. largest wilderness left in North and will continue to change the course In the concluding chapter, Minteer America. Twice the size of Texas, it is of wilderness and conservation thought, and Manning provide an excellent syn- 50 million acres (20.2 million ha) of research, management, and policy. opsis of the approaches recommended roadless, rolling tundra, providing Reconstructing Conservation is yet by the book’s authors. I couldn’t help breeding grounds to countless birds another example of the power of but be struck by the convergence of and a home to migratory herds of un- Cronon’s article, as it attempts to “re- approaches recommended by these gulates and their predatory partners. construct” this constructivist analysis authors (mainly social scientists) and Discovering Eden is the author’s account of the wilderness movement in particu- those posited by many landscape of more than 30 years of canoeing and lar and the conservation movement in ecologists and conservation biologists. guiding experience in this region. As a general. The editors wished to The similarities reflect a major, ongo- ing paradigm shift in conservation. collection of stories, essays, and com- assess the meaning and rel- Their recommended approaches to mentaries, Alex Hall attempts to convey evance of our conservation in- conservation include (1) the need to what this land has taught him and open heritance in the twenty-first the eyes of the reader to its value. century and to chart a course create “social capital” in communities for revising the conventional to better engage citizens in decision Discovering Eden is divided into narratives and accounts of the making; (2) the associated call for com- seven parts, detailing various aspects tradition so that a ‘useable past’ munity-based conservation; (3) having of Hall’s experience in the Barren Lands. might be uncovered that could less emphasis on wilderness to better Hall begins (parts I and II) with a his- inform present and future con- protect urban, rural, and cultural land- tory of his initiation to the region, and servation efforts. (p. 5) scapes; (4) focusing on ecological the passion that kept him coming back. What follows is a revisionist history processes (e.g., land health or ecologi- This section is followed by accounts of of many of the familiar figureheads cal integrity) rather than landscapes the trials and tribulations of running a (e.g., G. P. Marsh, Leopold) and events (e.g., protected areas); (5) using adap- small, but successful, operation in the (e.g., the Muir/Pinchot battle) in the tive management and incorporating a region year after year. Part III offers history of wilderness and conserva- plurality of values into conservation; short glimpses of regional wildlife in tion. Occasionally, the rewriting of this and (6) incorporating questions of so- both summer and winter, including familiar history is a little forced, and cial justice and power inequities. more than just the charismatic it is unclear how a constructivist ap- Although it is unfortunate that a more megafauna. In response to clients who proach really changes these historical critical analysis of these recommenda- curse the insects for ruining this para- events. However, many of the out- tions is not provided, Reconstructing dise, Hall replies, “If it wasn’t for the standing multidisciplinary authors Conservation provides a fascinating, well- Continued on page 7

48 International Journal of Wilderness DECEMBER 2004 • VOLUME 10, NUMBER 3